N  V. 

•  ''-'A  •••■  mmi 


wmm 


■  \ 


nyf 


i«Si 

-a 


$MS$  -II 

tfAKillSf s ’ v  ^1  #  . *  M:  "'WU 

mmmm 1  :§?A:  c i  :3it@  ask  M  if/df 

*  -  4  Vi  toll** 

M  E  M  O  I  R  S 


5V, 


‘afO 


’’V  ESPis 

>  "  M“, 


•  •  m 


OF  THE 


Ti^Vvi 

h*  Vv 


•I 


®|ibc0|h1  C|itrc|? 


AND  OF  THE 


Ilf 


IP-Ei  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 


(}j|f.  .'  \iji  ’  '  C/T  d 

! !  ;  $& 

m*5  Aw  i 


afcP 

m 


WITH 


•Si,.' 


I? 


^Si****'1 


•  Wvj 


^.vVU# 


W)y,\i.W‘  i 
it. 

:£•■•  '  "•  I 


COTEMPORARY  REPORTS  RESPECTING  THESE  AND 


®fiPPr 

ty/Si" 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND, 


EX  f'R  ACTED  FROM  THE  i  OPTIC  PRESS , 


ANALYZED  AND  COMPARED  WITH  PREVIOUS  HISTORY, 


hrXL.- 

|» 


V 


BY 


:><V: 


BENJAMIN  AYCRIGG,  Ph.  D. 


i  m  • 

: 


3 

pfcii'j 

'  .  ,> 

tp«j 

%D‘  W* 
*  n*,-  i  |  1 8» 


3> 


“  Schism  is  a  Sin  by  Apostolic  Authority." 

“  Separation  from  Schism  is  a  Duty  by  Apostolic  Example. 

“  Separation  from  his  Schism  is  Schism  according  to  each  Canonist . 

Chap.  xii. 


» 


iil/j 


V.vAv.V.V 


v : 

if 


fl  ■  • . 

••^iv.v.P'.v  'i.v  if  ■>:  iski 

yg  ,?|#r 


1  %"•: 


sr c#:i!  m ,  ■ Hmmmy. 

™ . . -vm. . . . . . .  mi 

r;io  vO  "  "4i  -  }  i  p-  ,'*] 

wmm*  '  . »««&, . ^  i  ,|^<4 

\ 


V;; 


. . MBmm 

cm  m  m*  smm 

*AYp'C:'  :  IIC  ■  ■'s"c: 


mi 


i  if  ji 


i"  x'V.Y-  ';  . 

'A' 

m 


A.  4  . 

,V  ’  Tv 

.•  1  ■  r,  •<  **  ' 

V  ■,  <yl  ■  1 


i  *v  ■ .«  ,  $  i 

JfS'fii'  ’l|>  ,Jifc  ■  V"1  ’^'N.  ■:  ffils-*"--.  '  H  "s«-v:':  "x 

:•  ”■  jp.  ;  .  ««3.  ^ 

**  ;  ,  ■  :  *  /  vi;  v.-if  '  ,!  “■  v 

4'.  if  '  J 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 

WITH 


COTEMPORARY  reports  respecting  these  and 

THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND, 


EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  PUBLIC  PRESS , 


analyzed  and  compared  with  previous  history, 


BENJAMIN  AYCRIGG,  Pei.  D. 

U 

.  I 


“  Schism  is  a  Sin  by  Apostolic  Authority 
“  Separation  frGm  Schism  is  a  Duty  by  Apostolic  Example A 
“  Separation  fro?n  his  Schism  is  Schism  according  to  each  Canonists 

Chap.  xii. 


NEW  YORK: 

PRINTED  FOR  The  AUTHOR  BY  EDWARD  O.  JENKINS, 
20  North  William  Street. 

1875. 


PREFACE. 


> 


THE  OBJECT  OF  THIS  WORK  IS 

TO  PROVE 

That :  The  R.  E.  C.  is  neither  a  schism ,  nor  in  schism  :  a  sin  denounced  by 
Apostolic  authority  ;  but  a  peaceable  separation  from  schism,  in  accordance  with 
Apostolic  example — while  it  is  denounced  as  a  schism  by  Canonists,  who  find  their 
authority  in  tradition  and  not  in  the  Bible. — vii ;  xii ;  xiv — ii;  xii  ;  xiii. 

That :  The  Pan  Anglican  Church,  by  Apostolic  authority,  is  a  schism,  cutting 
itself  off  from  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world  ;  and  in  schism  with  its  different  hos¬ 
tile  parties,  “  fighting  it  out  within  the  Church  ” — while  it  is  claimed  by  its  own 
Canonists  to  be  especially  “The  Church.” — iii;  iv  ;  v  ;  viii  ;  x;  xii ;  xiii — xii. 

That :  “  The  Old  Evangelicals  who  bore  the  Evangelical  banner  so  nobly,” 
were  in  the  line  of  duty  when  success  appeared  possible  ;  but  became  a  schism 
when  they  continued  to  “  fight  ”  after  becoming  a  “  hopeless  and  helpless  minor¬ 
ity.” — (iii,  Oct.  81,  1874.) 

That :  The  R.  E.  C,  was  organized  by  Old  Evangelicals,  in  order  to  separate 
from  schism,  and  to  act  with  energy  upon  Old  Evangelical  principles,  as  Protest¬ 
ants  in  harmony  with  the  Protestant  world.  In  place  of  remaining  in  the  P.  E.  C. 
and  either  “  fighting,”  or  refusing  to  act  for  the  common  cause,  upon  the  ground 
that  all  the  increase  arising  from  their  action  would  be  absorbed  and  themselves 
controlled  by  the  ruling  majority,  who  have  lately  assumed  a  hostile  attitude  to¬ 
ward  Protestantism  and  the  Protestant  world. — i;  ii ;  iv  ;  v;  vi  ;  vii;  ix ;  xi ; 
xiv  ;  xv — xii. 

That :  The  rapid  advance  of  the  R.  E .  C.  proves  that  its  peculiar  characteris¬ 
tics  agree  with  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  a  large  number  of  the  members  of  the 
“  One  Holy  Catholic  Church  ” — while  it  differs  in  nothing  essential  from  the  gene¬ 
ral  standards  of  other  Protestant  denominations  in  the  same  Church. — i — xi;  xv. 

The  Author,  as  a  layman,  refers  to  doctrinal  matters  in  general  terms,  leaving 
details  for  the  clergy.  From  personal  knowledge  he  states  many  facts  that  have 
fallen  under  his  observation  as  one  of  the  Old  Evangelicals  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  and 
identified  with  the  R.  E.  C.  from  its  inception. — (xii,  29  to  39  ;  45  to  51.) 

Obj  ections  to  statements  given  as  facts,  or  to  conclusions  drawn  from  admitted 
facts,  will  be  given  in  future  editions  as  Appendices,  Provided  they  be  stated  in  a 
positive  form,  asserting  what  are  the  facts,  or  the  legitimate  conclusions,  and  sent 
to  the  author  in  a  marked  newspape,  ,  as  editorial,  or  with  the  signature  of  a  Bish¬ 
op,  or  other  minister,  as  responsible  public  authority. 

Newspapers  are  separated  from  their  dates  by  the  catchwords  indicating  the 
subjects,  and  in  that  case  are  put  in  parentheses.  These  furnish  direct  references 
to  the  extracts  in  full  as  found  in  files  of  these  papers  in  public  libraries,  since  only 
so  much  is  given  as  to  indicate  the  substance,  in  order  to  save  space.  Their  names 

(3) 


4 


PREFACE. 


are  thus  contracted :  (Epis.)  Episcopalian,  of  Philadelphia,  edited  by  Rev.  C.  W. 
Quick,  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  Low  Church,  and  the  only  Episcopal  paper  that  defends  the 
R.  E.  C.  (Ch.  St.)  Church  and  State,  of  New  York,  with  Rev.  John  Cotton  Smith, 
D.D.,  editor-in-chief,  and  Rev.  L.  M.  Dorman.  This  is  “Broad”  [?]  Church,  and 
the  successor  of  (Prot.  Ch.)  Protestant  Churchman,  of  New  York,  Low  Church, 
wheu  edited  by  Rev.  N.  H.  Schenck,  D.D.,  and  Rev.  John  Cotton  Smith,  D.D.,  and 
Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith.  (Chn.)  Hartford  Churchman,  High  Church.  (Ch.  Jo.) 
Church  Journal,  of  New  York,  High  Church,  edited  by  Rev.  Hugh  Miller  Thomp¬ 
son,  D.D.,  and  formerly  by  Rev.  John  H.  Hopkins,  D.D.  (So.  Ch.)  Southern  Church¬ 
man,  of  Alexandria,  represents  the  Dioceses  of  Virginia.  (St.  X.)  Standard  of  the 
Cross,  printed  at  Gambier  (?)  represents  the  Diocese  of  Ohio.  (Obs.)  New  York 
Observer,  Presbyterian.  (Trib.)  New  York  Tribune,  secular,  but  devotes  much  at¬ 
tention  to  Church  matters,  and  inserts  articles  rejected  by  partisan  Church  papers. 
(Times),  New  York  Times,  secular.  (Post),  New  York  Evening  Post,  secular. 
(Herald),  New  York  Herald,  secular.  (Rock),  Low  Church  in  England.  All  other 
newspapers  have  their  names  in  full.  The  R.  E.  C.  has  no  representative  except 
as  above. — xi.  39 — 42. 


Contractions. — R.  E.  C.  signifies  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  and  P.  E.  C., 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church ;  and  Ch.  Eng.,  the  Church  of  England ;  and  Pan- 
Anglican.  the  combined  P .  E.  C.  and  Ch.  Eng. 

The  Table  of  Contents  gives  a  general  view  of  the  points  analyzed. 

B.  Aycrigg. 

Passaic,  N.  J.,  April  1,  1875. 


i 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER. 

I. — CHRONOLOGICAL  INDEX,  and  Action  of  the  It.  E.  C.,  and  Press 
reports. 

II. — It.  E.  C.,  Press  reports  of  action  against,  and  Opinions  expressed  by  friends 
and  foes. 

HI. — PAN  ANGLICAN  CHURCH.  Press  reports  respecting  the  P.  E.  C. 
and  the  Church  of  England. 

IV.  — EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE.  (1,  2).  Address  of  Bishop  Cummins. 

— (3  to  8).  Principles  of  the  Old  Evangelicals,  cause  the  inauguration  of 
the  R.  E.  C. 

V.  — JOINT  COMMUNIONS.  (1,  2,  5).  What  they  were. — (3).  Dr.  Adams  on 

Bishop  Tozer. — (4).  Bishop  Cummins. 

VI.— PRAYER  BOOK  OF  1785  and  Journals  of  1785-6.— (1,  2,  5).  Whence 
obtained. — (3).  Reprint  as  Low  Church  document. — (4).  Then  for  R.  E.  C. 
— (6,  7,  8).  Contents  of  Journals. — (9).  Referred  to. — (10).  Bishop  White’s 
Memoirs. — (11).  Perry’s  Hand-Book. 

VII.— RESIGNATIONS.  (1).  Of  Bishop  Cummins.— (2).  Of  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith. 
— (3).  Record  of  Deposition. — (4).  New  Jersey  Bishop  and  Convention. — 
(5).  Resignation  of  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher. — (6).  Other  resignations. — (7). 
Restoration. 

VIII. — DEPOSITION  of  Bishop  Cummins. — (1).  Acknowledgment  of  receipt  of 
Resignation, — (2).  Formal  notice. — (3).  Canon. — (4).  Deposition  record. — 
(5).  New  Canon. 

IX. — CALL  TO  ORGANIZE.  (1).  Note. — (2.)  Principles. — (3).  For  Episcopa¬ 
lians  only. — (4  to  9).  Unpremeditated. — (10).  Letter  Dimissory. — (11).  A 
layman  retracts. — (12  to  15).  Erroneous  reports. — (16).  Call  made  public, 
Nov.  26. 


X.— ATTEMPTS  TO  ARREST  THE  R.  E.  C.  (1  to  9).  Null  and  void 
proclamation. — (10  to  14).  Internal  effects. — (15).  Card  of  the  Philadel¬ 
phians.— (16).  Small  attempt  on  Dec.  2. — (17  to  22).  Telegram  to  Chicago. 
— (23).  Trip  to  Chicago. — (24.)  Trip  to  Peoria. 

XI— PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  R.  E.  C.  (1).  The  R.  E.  C.  is  mainly  a  sep¬ 
arate  organization  of  the  Old  Evangelicals  of  the  P.  E.  C. — (2).  Declara¬ 
tion  of  Principles  of  the  R.  E.  C.  in  1873. — (3,  4).  Changes  in  Common 

(5) 


6 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER. 

Prayer  Book  in  1874. — (5  to  7).  Philadelphia  Declaration  in  1867. — (8). 
Revision  of  the  Prayer  Book  in  1867. — (9  to  12).  Proceedings  of  Old  Evan¬ 
gelicals  and  union  with  Presbyterians  in  1867. — (13).  Separation  threaten¬ 
ing  in  1868. — (14).  Chicago  Protest  and  Call  in  1869. — (15).  Chicago  Con¬ 
ference  in  1869. — (16  to  20).  Sympathy  for  Rev.  Charles  E.  Cheney  on  his 
suspension  (May  13,  1871). — (21,  22).  Changes. — (23).  The  three  Evangel¬ 
ical  Societies  in  1874. — (24).  The  Old  Evangelicals,  where  found  before 
the  inauguration  of  the  R.  E.  C. — (25).  Old  Evangelical  clergymen  of  the 
P.  E.  C.,  now  in  the  R.  E.  C. — (26).  List  of  clergy  of  the  R.  E.  C. — (27). 
Call  and  Declaration  of  the  R.  E.  C.  compared. — (28).  Preparations  to  or¬ 
ganize. — (29).  Declaration  irrevocable. — (30  to  35).  Action  of  Committees. — 
(36).  Revision  very  conservative. — (37.)  Free  Church  of  England. — (38  to 
41).  Secular  Press  state  facts,  but  criticise. — (42).  Some  others  give  false 
and  distorted  statements. — (43).  Episcopacy. 

XII. — SCHISM  AND  SEPARATION.  (1  to  8).  Defined.— (9).  Churches  of 

Rome  and  Constantinople. — (10).  Rome  and  England. — (11).  Rome  a  schism 
in  schism. — (12.)  Church  of  England,  a  schism  in  schism. — (13).  Under 
Mary. — (14).  Under  Elizabeth. — (15).  Its  Inquisition. — (16).  Compulsion. 
—  (17).  “  Act  of  Conformity  ”  to  “  The  Protestant  Church  of  England  as 
by  law  established.” — (18).  Dissents  on  removing  compulsion. — (19).  For 
political  purposes  “  comprehends  ”  all  religious  views. — (20).  Was  Protest¬ 
ant  in  the  early  part  of  this  century,  but  Ritualists  have  a  legal  status. — 
(21).  Gladstone  controversy  is  political. — (22).  Character  of  controlling 
Parliament. — (23).  Its  Protestantism  depends  on  Dissenters. — (24).  Its 
Canonist  claim. — (25).  P.  E.  C.  is  legally  a  schism  in  schism. — (26).  Not¬ 
withstanding  the  opinion  expressed  in  1814. — (27,  28).  P.  E.  C.  and  the 
Dutch  Church  in  1697,  1779,  1790.— (29),  Personal  knowledge. — (30  to  35). 
P.  E.  C.  before  and  after  Puseyism  was  introduced. — (36  to  39).  Official  de¬ 
cision  of  Rev.  Dr.  Wain wright.— (40  to  42).  Becomes  a  schism  in  1868. — 
(43  to  48).  “  Fighting.” — (49  to  52).  Results. — (53  to  55).  Pan  Anglicans 
controlled  by  English  politics. — (56)  Triumph  of  the  Ritualists. — (57). 
The  Alternative. — (58).  “  Comprehensive  Church.” — (59).  Last  General 
Convention. — (60).  R.  E.  C.  and  other  Prot.  Churches  not  schisms  nor  in 
schism. 

XIII.  — SPIRIT  IN  THE  P.  E.  C.  toward  the  It.  E.  C.  (1  to  4).  Preliminaries. — 

(5).  Some  admit  the  principle  of  separation. — (6).  Bishops  Lee,  and  Johns, 
and  Vail,  and  Clarkson  object  like  Christians. — (7  to  9).  Some  appear  to 
want  charity,  and  to  use  the  sword  of  Joab  ;  others  to  mean  less  than 
the  words  express  ;  others  to  be  frightened. — (10).  Collection  of  epithets. 
— (11).  Answers. — (12).  “Formally  deposed.” — (13).  But  Dr.  Cheney  was 
not  deposed. — (14  to  17).  Bishop  Lewis,  of  Canada,  with  (15)  Record  of 
Bishop  Cummins. — (18  to  22).  Bishop  Lee,  of  Delaware ;  his  first  com¬ 
plaint  is  a  compliment.  Bishop  Cummins  did  not  think  of  resigning 
until  after  Oct.  12.  Several  Bishops  admit  the  time  may  come.  He  and 
others  thought  the  time  had  come. — (23).  Dr.  Fulton  thinks  that  he  is 


CONTENTS. 


7 


CHAPTER. 

the  first  to  use  hard  words. — (24).  Bishops  Stevens  alone  raises  a  question 
of  veracity. — (25).  Dr.  Sullivan  is  frightened  out  of  propriety. — (26).  The 
Sandard  of  the  Cross  cries  for  “quarter.” — (27).  Postal  Cards. — (28).  Bishop 
Howe  “  abuses  ”  the  R.  E.  C. — (1(H).  P.  E.  C.  is  a  small  denomination. 

XIV.— SPIRIT  OF  THE  R.  E.  C.  toward  the  P.  E.  C.  (1,  2).  Work,  and  be 
silent. — (3).  No  answers  made  to  attacks  except  to  correct  errors  as  to 
facts. — (4).  No  ill-feeling  to  prevent  a  re  union  if  errors  were  removed  and 
personalities  atoned  for. — (5).  Mr.  Turner  in  his  pamphlet. — (6).  Mr. 
Smith  on  opening  the  church  in  Louisville. — (7,  8).  Cause  of  separation 
explained  by  facts. — (9).  For  and  against  the  R.  E.  C.,  according  as  the 
hearer  is  Protestant  or  Romanist. — (10).  Letter  Dimissory. — (11).  Conserv¬ 
atives. 

XV. — OTHER  CHURCHES.  (1  to  12).  Presbyterians  and  Old  Evangelicals  in 
1867. — (13,  14).  Presbyterians  in  1874. — (15).  Free  Church  of  England 
Federative  union  with  the  R.  E.  C.  in  1874. — (16).  The  same  principles 
applicable  to  any  Evangelical  Church. — (17).  Reformed  (Dutch)  Church 
in  Holland,  and  in  America,  in  1697,  1779,  1790. — (18).  Receives  the  new 
Church  in  1874. — (19,  20).  “  Dissenters  ”  true  in  England,  but  false  in  this 
country. — (21).  Letter  to  Dr.  Wain wright  in  1846. — (22).  A  general  Fede¬ 
ration  would  be  a  blessing,  but  organic  union  objectionable  if  too  extensive. 

XVI.— OFFICIAL  DECISION  of  Dr.  Waimcright  in  1846.— (1).  Personal  ante¬ 
cedents. — (2).  Basis  of  the  decision. — (3).  The  Apostles  had  no  successors. 
(4).  The  “  Fathers  ”  are  not  authority. — (5).  As  3d. — (6).  “  Lo,  I  am  with 
you !”  does  not  require  the  “  Succession.” — (7).  Nor  does  “  Called  of  God 
as  was  Aaron.” — (8).  Nor  “  How  can  they  preach  except  they  be  sent.” — 
(9).  Titus  and  Timothy  were  not  Bishops. — (10).  Nor  the  plural  “  angels  ” 
of  Smyrna  a  Bishop. — (11).  “  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,’’ 
does  not  require  the  “  Succession.” — (12).  The  directions  to  Titus  are  not 
laid  down  as  general  laws. — (13).  Deacons  to  “  serve  tables,”  preach,  and 
baptize. — (14).  Laying  on  of  hands  upon  Paul  when  already  an  Apostle. — 
(15).  Directions  to  laymen  when  preaching  and  prophesying. — (16).  Ana¬ 
nias  was  a  layman. — (17).  St.  Paul  denies  that  he  received  his  office  from 
man. — (18).  Foot-note  as  to  St.  Paul. — (19).  The  Bible  the  only  authority. 
— (20).  We  are  not  to  be  chained  fast  to  corruption. — (21).  Who  then  form 
the  Catholic  Church  ? — (22).  We  are  bound  to  belong  to  some  denomination. 
(23).  I  prefer  the  Episcopal.— (24).  No  evil  from  the  “  Multitude  of  sects.” 
(25).  You  have  not  convinced  me. — (26).  This  is  for  practical  purposes,  not 
for  discussion. — (27).  Objectionable  preaching  by  others. — (28).  Federative 
union  desirable. — (29).  The  only  difference  between  us  is  Theoretical. — 
(30).  Dr.  Wainwright  decides  that  “  there  is  nothing  [in  the  above]  that 
would  prevent  the  most  perfect  fellowship  with  our  Church.” 

XX.— APPENDIX. 

This  Proof  Copt  is  presented  to - ,  with  the  request  that  he 

will  suggest  any  correction  or  addition  to  be  made ,  with  his  name  as  authority ,  before  printing 
a  corrected  edition.  Very  respectfully,  COL.  B.  AYCRIGG,  Passaic,  Ar.  J. 


p 


CHAPTER  I 


INDEX  TO  ALL  CURRENT  PRESS  REPORTS  AND  THE  ACTION 
OF  THE  REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


The  references  (II.,  III.),  indicate  the  same  date  in  Chapters  II.  and  III. 
In  other  cases  the  Chapter  is  indicated  by  Roman  numerals ,  and  the  divi¬ 
sions  by  Arabic  numerals.  All  that  are  not  distributed  elsewhere ,  will  be 
found  in  Chapter  I.,  including  the  internal  action  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  while 
opinions  and  external  action  for  and  against  the  R.  E.  C.  are  transferred 
to  Chapter  II.  And  extracts  referring  to  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  to  the  Church 
of  England,  are  transferred  to  Chapter  III.,  including  reasons  for  leaving 
the  P.  E.  C.,  indicated  by  “ Low .”  For  past  history,  see  Contents,  pp.  5,  7. 
For  contractions,  see  Preface. 

October  8,  1873. 

Oct.  8.  Bishop  Cummins  addresses  the  Evangelical  Alliance . iv.  2. 


Oct.  12.  Joint  Communion,  and  its  consequences..  „ . v. 

Oct.  12.  Prayer-Book  of  1785  in  hands  of  the  printer,  and  Journals  of  1785-6. 

shortly  after  Nov.  13.  . . .,. . . vi. 

Oct.  30.  B.  Aycrigg  withdraws  from  the  P.  E.  C . iv.  8  ;  xii.  51. 

Nov.  5.  Bishop  Potter  on  Bishop  Tozer . iii ;  v.  3. 

Nov.  5.  Church  and  State  on  Bishop  Potter . . . iii. 

Nov.  10.  Resignation  of  Bp.  Cummins . vii. 

Nov.  12.  Social  meeting  results  in  the  Call  to  organize . ix.  4,  5. 

Nov.  12.  Low  Church  Authorities  quoted  by  Ch.  St . iii. 

Nov.  13.  Call  to  organize  in  manuscript,  taken  to  New  York  by  Bishop 

Cummins . ix.  7. 

Nov.  13.  Bishop  Smith’s  informal  note . viii,  1. 

Nov.  14.  Bishop  Alfred  Lee  to  Bishop  Cummins _ ii,  Feb.  26  ;  xiii.  18  to  22. 

Nov.  15.  Call  to  organize  given  to  the  printer . ix.  1,  2,  8. 

Nov.  15.  Post,  Times,  Tribune,  on  the  Resignation . ii. 

Nov.  17.  Rev.  Dr.  Adams  on  Joint  Communion .  v.  3. 

Nov.  17.  Call  to  organize  left  New  York  by  mail . ix.  8. 

Nov.  18.  Kentucky  Standing  Committee  act  formally  on  a  printed  copy  of 

the  Resignation  of  Nov.  10 . . . viii.  2. 

Nov.  19.  Bishops’  meeting  in  New  York . ii.,  Nov.  26. 

Nov.  19.  Bishop  Cummins’  characteristics  and  resignation,  by  Church  and 

State . ii. 

Nov.  22.  Bishop  Smith  sends  formal  notice  to  Bishop  Cummins  that,  by 

Canon  he  will  be  deposed  in  six  months . viii.  2. 

Nov.  26.  Southern  Churchman  objects  to  Resignation . . . .  .ii. 

Nov.  26.  Catholicus.  Resignation  is  “  action” . ii. 

(81 


CHAPTER  I. 


9 


November  26,  1873. 

Nov.  26.  Historical  Accuracy  of  Bisliop  Cummins,  by  Church  and  State ,  an¬ 
swered . ii.,  Nov.  19. 

Nov.  26.  Call  to  organize.  Published  by  Ch.  St . ii. 

Nov.  26.  Bishops’  meeting  (Ch.  St.)  on  Nov.  19 . 1 . ii. 

Nov.  27.  Drs.  Sullivan  and  Cheney  on  Resignation . ii. 

Nov.  27.  Low  Church  Resolutions  on  Resignation . iii. 

Nov.  27.  Private  information  about  the  Bishops . x,  12. 

Nov.  28.  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  transferred . ix.  4,  7,  10  ;  ii.,  April  22,  1874 

Nov.  29.  Six  Bishops  meet  to  arrest  the  organization  of  the  R.  E.  C.  on 
Dec.  2 . ii  ;  x.  1  to  14. 

Nov.  29.  Telegram  to  Kentucky,  supposed  to  have  been  sent  by  the 
Bishops . x.  8  to  14. 

Nov.  30.  Bishops’  meeting  (Times)  report  and  editor. . . ii. 

Dec.  1,  1873.  Bishops’  meeting  ( 1'rib) .  ii. 

Dec.  1.  Private  telegram  from  Louisville  to  Bishop  Cummins.  “  Charges 
against  you  forwarded  from  here  to-day” . ii  ;  x.  7  to  14. 

Dec.  1.  Bishop’s  Act  (Post) . Ii. 

Dec.  1.  “Null  and  Void”  proclamation  published  in  the  Evening  Post  of 
Dec.  1.  Supposed  to  have  been  founded  solely  upon  a  telegram  purporting  to 
come  from  the  “  Secretary  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  Ken¬ 
tucky” . ii  ;  x.  7  to  14. 

Dec.  1.  “We  have  laid  down  our  course  and  shall  not  swerve  from  it  one 
inch  for  anything  that  man  can  do  against  us.” . .  .x.  10  to  14. 

Dec.  1.  Card  of  Evangelicals  of  Philadelphia  against  the  R.  E.  C.  reprinted 
in  New  York . ii ;  x.  15. 

Dec.  2.  Small  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  organization . x.  16. 

Dec.  2.  Organization  of  the  R.  E.  C.  (xi)  with  a  layman  as  Temporary  Presi¬ 
dent  for  a  specific  purpose  (x.  12).  The  Rev.  W.  V.  Feltwell  came  forward  and 
signed  the  Call,  and  thus  joined  the  R.  E.  C.  Those  who  were  present  and  joined 
in  founding  the  R.  E.  C.,  were  these:  Right  Rev.  George  David  Cummins,  D.D., 
elected  Presiding  Bishop,  Rev.  Charles  E.  Cheney,  D.D.,  elected  Bishop  by  this 
Council.  And  clergymen  :  Marshall  B.  Smith,  Mason  Gallagher,  B.  B.  Leacock, 
D.D.,  W.  Y.  Feltwell.  “And  Permanent  Lay  Members,  signers  of  the  original 
Call  who  were  present  and  voted  in  the  First  General  Council  of  the  R.  E.  C.  : 
Benjamin  Aycrigg,  Ph.  D.,  Theodore  Bourne,  Albert  Crane,  James  L.  Dawes,  Wil¬ 
liam  S.  Doughty,  John  G.  Floyd,  Jr.,  George  A.  Gardiner,  William  H.  Gilder, 
Thomas  J.  Hamilton,  Charles  D.  Kellogg,  James  L.  Morgan,  Samuel  Mulliken, 
Frederick  A.  Pell,  G.  A.  Sabine,  M.D.,  Jeremiah  H.  Taylor,  George  M.  Tibbitts, 
Herbert  B.  Turner.”  (Journal  of  1874,  page  6.) 

Dec.  3.  Tribune  gives  fullest  account  of  the  organization  on  Dec.  2,  (xi.  1  2) 
and  see  Journal  of  First  General  Council,  1873. 

Dec.  3.  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  Jr.,  says  Bp.  C.  had  a  right  to  resign . ii. 

Dec.  3.  Episcopalian  says  of  “  Null  and  Void,”  “  unbecoming  haste.”. .  .ii ;  x. 

Dec.  4.  Exclusiveness  and  Parties  in  P.  E.  C . iii- 

Dec.  4.  Church  and  State  describes  individuals  of  R.  E.  C . ii. 

Dec.  4.  Church  Journal  says,  “  Fallen  Bishop.”  “Fast.” . ii. 

Dec.  4.  Prayer-Book  of  1785 — Answered . ii. 


CHAPTER  I. 


10 


December  4,  1873. 

Dec.  4.  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng,  Sr.,  condemns  Bp.  Cummins . ii. 

Dec.  4.  Observer  copies  the  “Null  and  Void”  and  the  card  (see  above,  Dec.  1). 

Dec.  6.  “  Formally  Deposed,”  says  Churchman . ii ;  xiii.  12, 13. 

Dec.  6.  Christian  Intelligencer — “  Visionary.” . ii* 

Dec.  9.  Rev.  Dr.  Cheney  accepts  the  office  of  Bishop,  says  the  Herald. 

Dec.  10.  Episcopal  Register  on  Null  and  Void . ii ;  x.  21. 

Dec.  11.  Observer  on  Null  and  Void — “  Uncanonical.” . ii. 

't  ' 

Dec.  11.  Observer  on  the  Council  of  Dec.  2.  (Editorial) . ii. 

Dec.  11.  Bishop  H.  W.  Lee  on  Organization . ii. 

Dec.  11.  Churchman — “  Fallen  Bishop.” . ii. 


Dec.  11.  Bishop  and  Mrs.  Cummins,  and  four  clergymen,  and  one  layman, 
left  New  York  for  Chicago,  for  the  consecratiou  of  Bishop  Cheney  on  Dec.  14. 

x.  23,24. 

Dec.  12.  Telegram  to  Chicago  to  prevent  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Cheney  as  a 


Bishop,  on  Dec.  14 . ii ;  x.  17  to  22. 

Dec.  13.  Church  of  England,  by  Prof.  Fisher . iii. 

Dec.  13.  Church  and  State — “  Utterly  dishonorable.” . ii. 

Dec.  13.  The  Churchman  mistakes  dates . . . ii. 

Dec.  13.  Congregationalist,  Baptist  Weekly,  and  Christian  Union  on  the 

R.  E.  C... . ii. 

Dec.  14.  Rev.  Charles  E.  Cheney,  D.D.,  consecrated  Bishop  (x.  17  to  22; 
xiii.  13).  This  was  reported  in  the  Chicago  Tribune  (friendly),  and  Chicago  Times 
(hostile),  and  on  Dec.  17  in  the  Episcopalian. 


Dec.  17.  Rev.  Abbott  Brown,  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  objects  to  the  “  Card”  of  Dec.  1. 


ii ;  x.  15. 

Dec.  17.  Church  Journal  approves  of  Bishop  Cummins’  resignation . ii. 

Dec.  17.  Remarks  of  Wisconsin  State  Journal,  Southern  Churchman ,  Rev. 

Abbott  Brown,  and  Methodist  Recorder . ii. 

Dec.  17.  Canonicus  (Epis) . . x.  6. 

Dec.  17.  The  Peoria  Transcript  reports  the  action  at  Peoria,  with  the  view 


of  forming  a  congregation  of  the  R.  E.  C.  Present :  Bishops  Cummins  and  Cheney  ; 
Rev.  Mason  Gallagher,  Rev.  W.  V.  Feltwell,  Rev.  C.  H.  Tucker,  and  B.  Aycrigg, 
of  the  party  from  Chicago.  All  took  part  in  the  meeting.  A.  G.  Tyng  is  the 
leader  of  the  movement.  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  and  Rev.  B.  B.  Leacock,  D.D.,  went 


from  New  York  to  Chicago,  but  not  to  Peoria . x.  24. 

Dec.  31.  Southern  Churchman’s  correspondent  ridicules  the  Church  Journal 

of  Dec.  4 . ii. 

Dec.  31.  Schism  by  Goddard  of  St.  Andrews . ii. 

Dec.  31.  Return  of  the  R.  E.  C.  to  the  P.  E.  C . ii. 

Dec.  31.  Bishop  Pearce  ;  Null  and  Void  absurd . ii ;  x.  3. 

Dec.  31.  $100,000  subscribed  for  the  R.  E.  C.,  says  a  correspondent  of  the 

Episcopalian.  [This  is  a  great  mistake] . ix.  12,  15. 

Jan.  1,  1874.  Apostolic  succession  is  in  R.  E.  C.  (Ch.  St.) . ii. 

Jan.  1.  Ritualism  in  England . iii. 

Jan.  1.  Ritualism  in  Pennsylvania . iii. 

Jan.  1.  Dr.  De  ICoven’s  Ritualism . . iii. 

Jan.  1.  Church  Herald  on  the  Queen . iii. 


CHAPTER  I. 


11 


January  4,  1874. 

Jan.  4.  Bishop  Cummins  held  the  first  service  of  the  R.  E.  C.  in  New  York, 
in  Steinway  Hall. 

Jan.  12.  Bev.  Jas.  A.  Latane  withdraws  from  the  P.  E.  C.  in  Virginia. . .  .iii. 
Jan.  21.  Moncton,  NT.  B.  The  R.  E.  C.  begun  by  Rev.  W.  V.  Feltwell. 

Jan.  21.  English  Independent  on  the  R.  E.  C . . . ii ;  xii.  48. 

Jan.  21.  Catholicus  (Rev.  G.  W.  Ridgely)  “  Ghost !” . ii. 

Jan.  21.  Wm.  C.  Little  on  Ritualism  in  New  York . iii. 

Jan.  22.  Church  Journal — “  BISHOP  Cummins !  ” . ii. 

Jan.  22.  BISHOP  Cheney — Church  and  State. . . ii. 

Jan.  26.  St.  Louis  Democrat  gives  at  length  the  addresses  on  Jan.  25,  in  Dr. 
Brooks’  Church,  by  Mr.  R.  H.  Franklin,  Rev.  T.  E.  Smith,  Rev.  Dr.  Brooks,  and 


Rev.  Mason  Gallagher  on  the  R.  E.  C. 

Jan.  29.  Church  and  State  on  Rev.  J.  A.  Latanc’s  withdrawal . iii. 

Jan.  29.  Dilemma  ;  by  Church  and  State . . . ii. 


Jan.  29.  Bev.  W.  B.  Nicholson,  (Ch.  St.),  whose  Monday  P.M.  Bible  Class 
was  so  thronged  during  his  ministry  in  St.  Paul’s,  Boston,  has  instituted  a  similar 


exercise  on  Tuesdays,  at  Trinity,  Newark. 

Jan,  29.  Succession  (Ch.  St.)  says  that  R.  E.  C.  has  it . iii. 

Jan.  29.  Scotch  Episcopal  Church  (Ch.  St )  ridicule . iii. 

Eeb.  4,  1874.  Dean  of  Canterbury  (Epis.)  Joint  Communion .  iii. 

Feb.  4.  Bitualism  in  New  York,  by  Rev.  Dr.  C.  W.  Andrews . iii. 

Eeb.  IS.  Bitualist,  De  Koven  in  Convention  of  Wis . iii. 

Eeb.  18.  Bishop  Johns’  answer  to  Mr.  Latane . ii. 


Eeb.  18.  First  B,  E.  C.  in  New  York  (Epis.)  on  Feb.  15,  1874,  prepare  to  or¬ 
ganize. 

Eeb.  IS.  Moncton  (Epis.),  action  of  Rt.  Rev.  John,  Lord  Bishop  of  Fredericton, 
against  the  R.  E,  C . iii,  July  8. 

Eeb.  38.  Peoria,  Christ  Church  (Epis.)  has  upwards  of  50  members,  and  over 
$3,000  subscribed.  Rev.  J.  D.  Wilson^  of  Pittsburgh,  will  take  charge  on  Ash 
Wednesday.  Services  began  on  the  first  Sunday  in  January.  Determined  to  build 


a  church  immediately . x.  24. 

Feb.  18.  Bishop  Cummins’  (Epis.)  address  in  Philadelphia. 

Eeb.  23.  Bishop  Lewis  of  Ottawa . ii. 


Eeb.  25.  New  York  First  B.  E.  C.  (Epis.)  Committee  propose  a  social  meet¬ 
ing  on  Feb.  26,  and  organization  on  March  29. 

Eeb.  25.  Eishop  Cheney’s  Pastoral  respecting  Lent  (Epis.) 

Eeb.  25,  Peoria,  Pastoral  of  Rev.  J.  D.  Wilson  (Epis.) 

Eeb.  25.  Ottawa,  Canada,  (Epis.)  Committee  appointed  to  invite  Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins,  with  a  view  to  forming  a  congregation  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  and  discussion  re¬ 


specting  it.  . 

Eeb.  25.  Parties.  (Ch.  Jo.)  “  Evangelicals  swamped.” . iii. 

Eeb.  25.  Low.  Rev.  W.  McGuire  leaves  the  P.  E.  C . iii. 

Eeb.  26.  Bishop  Lee,  of  Delaware . ii ;  xiii.  18  to  22. 

March  4.  1874.  Bishop  White’s  Memoirs  (Epis.)  Edition  of  1836 . vi.  10. 

March  4.  Bitualism  in  Maryland . iii. 

March  4.  Seven  differences . . . iii. 

March  4.  Bishop  Johns.  By  Latane  (?) . ii 


CHAPTER  T. 


12 

March  4,  1874. 

March  4.  Rev.  Dr.  Howard  Crosby  preaches  in  the  R.  E.  C . ii. 

March  4.  New  York  First  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.)  re-union  on  Feb.  20  in  the  parlors 
of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association,  where  the  first  Council  was  held  on  Dec. 


2,  1873. 

March  4.  Bishop  Cummins  in  Methodist  Church . ii. 

March  4.  “  Hopeless,”  that  Virginia  should  secede . iii. 

March  11.  Rev,  J.  D.  Wilson.  Low . iii. 

March  11.  At  Montreal  (Epis.)  Mr.  Young’s  lecture . ii. 

March  14.  Bishop  Whittingham.  “Perjured.” . ii. 

March  18.  Ritualistic  Books  in  Ottawa . iii. 

March  18.  Peoria  (Epis.)  Rev.  J.  D.  Wilson  begins . \ . x.  24. 

March  18.  Aurora,  Ills.  (Epis.)  On  March  10th  a  business  meeting  with  a 
view  of  forming  an  organization  of  the  R.  E.  C. 

March  25.  Independent,  “  surrender  so  tamely.” . ii. 

March  25.  Low.  “Are  the  same  as  R.  E.  C.” . iii ;  xi. 

March  25.  Parties.  Is  there  not  a  cause  ?. . . iii. 


April  8,  1874.  Louisville,  Ky.  (Epis.)  Correspondent  says:  “Procrastina¬ 
tion  in  the  establishment  of  a  Reformed  Church  in  this  State,  will  go  far  to  retard 
its  future  progress  and  success.”  [Then,  Mr.  Correspondent,  don’t  “procrasti¬ 
nate  !  ”] . i,  July  22  ;  Aug.  19  ;  Nov.  28,  30. 

April  8.  Philadelphia,  First  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.)  at  the  Falls  of  the  Schuylkill 
begun  with  Rev.  WTalter  Windeyer  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  late  of  the  P.  E.  C. 

April  8.  New  York  First  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.)  Vestrymen  elected  on  April  6,  but 
no  Rector  nor  church  building.  Services  held  in  Steinway  Hall. 

April  8.  Parties — Presbyter  of  Maryland.  “  Mosquito.” . iii. 

April  11.  Rev.  W.  McGuire  received  into  the  R.  E.  C. 

April  15.  Chicago  (Epis.)  Christ  R.  E.  C.  elections,  and  Christ  P.  E.  C.  elec¬ 
tions  by  the  Cheney  party,  and  by  the  Whitehouse  party. 

April  15.  Aurora,  Ills.  (Epis.)  The  R.  E.  C.  held  service  on  March  29,  in  the 
City  Hall.  In  the  morning,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Quereau  preached.  In  the  evening,  Dr. 
Usher,  M.D.,  delivered  a  lecture. 

April  15.  Ottawa,  Can.  (Epis.)  R.  E.  C.  at  the  first  communion  had  60  com¬ 
municants. 

April  15.  Moncton,  N.  B.,  (Epis.)  Vestry  elected,  and  $1,000  subscribed  for  a 
parsonage. 

April  22.  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill  (Epis.)  Provost  of  McAllister  College,  Minneapolis, 
Minnesota,  dated  April  10,  requests  the  Presbytery  of  St.  Paul  to  transfer  him  to 
the  R.  E.  C.,  and  gives  the  leading  characteristics  of  the  R.  E.  C. 

April  22  Chicago  (Epis.)  Bishop  Cheney  received  by  confirmation  14,  and 
admitted  8  by  letter,  making,  in  all,  60  by  confirmation,  and  20  by  letter  since  the 
organization.  Easter  collection,  $8,723,  and  $1,481  next  Sunday,  making  $10,204, 
of  which  $10,000  are  required  to  purchase  the  church.  Pew  rents  exceed  $10,000. 

April  22.  Rev.  Dr.  John  Fulton,  “perjury,  treachery,  ungentlemanlike.”. ii. 

April  22.  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith.  Transfer  Nov.  28,  1873 . ii. 

April  22.  Bishop  Lewis.  “  Insidious  schism.” . Feb.  23,  ii ;  xiii,  14. 

April  22.  Rev.  W.  T.  Sabine  (Epis.)  has  resigned  the  Church  of  the  Atone¬ 
ment,  and  has  been  called  to  the  First  R.  E.  C.  of  New  York. 


CHAPTER  I. 


13 


April  22,  1874. 

April  22.  Rev.  "Walter  Windeyer  (Epis.)  lias  accepted  the  Rectorship  of  the 


First  R.  E.  C.  of  Philadelphia  (Falls  of  the  Schuylkill.) 

April  29.  Rev.  W.  McGuire  (Epis.)  deposed  April  26. 

April  30.  Dr.  Fulton  says  R.  E.  C.  has  the  Succession .  ii. 

April  30.  Murray  Hoffman  says  the  R.  E.  C.  has  not  the  Succession . ii. 

May  6,  1874.  Philadelphia,  Second  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.)  election. 


May  6.  Brooklyn  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.) Rev.  W.  H.  Reid,  Rector,  in  Cumberland  St., 
between  De  Kalb  and  Lafayette  Avenues. 

May  6.  Moncton,  N.  B.,  (Epis.)  Church  seats  about  350  ;  has  100  Sabbath 
scholars.  Moncton  has  3,000  inhabitants.  Ritualism  is  more  bold  than  in  the 
States.  Sussex,  at  fifty  miles,  is  in  full  sympathy. 

May  6.  Peoria  (Epis.)  Ritualism  desoribed.  Bishop  Cheney  was  here  on  April 
26,  and  preached  a  plain  gospel  sermon. 

May  6.  Rev.  W.  McGuire  (Epis.)  holds  service  in  Lincoln  Hall,  Washington. 
D.  C. 

May  6.  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher  (Epis.)  is  requested  to  have  his  lecture  on  the 
changes  in  the  Anglican  Prayer  Book  printed.  [It  is  now  in  pamphlet  form]. 


May  7.  Bishop  Guintard.  “  Evil  course  of  wayward  son.”. . , . ii. 

May  7.  Parties — Irish  Revision  of  the  Prayer  Book .  . iii. 


May  13  to  19.  Second  General  Council  of  the  R.  E.  C . xi  ;  32 — 42. 

Officers  of  the  General  Council,  1874 : 

President — Bishop  George  David  Cummins,  D.D.  Secretary — Herbert  B.  Turner. 
Treasurer — James  L.  Morgan.  Standing  Committee — Revs.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  B. 
B.  Leacock,  D.D.,  Mason  Gallagher,  W.  T.  Sabine,  W.  H.  Reid,  and  Messrs.  Benja¬ 
min  Aycrigg,  Ph.  D.,  James  L.  Morgan,  Herbert  B.  Turner,  Chas.  D.  Kellogg,  G. 
A.  Sabine,  M.D.  Committee  on  Doctrine  and  Worship — Revs.  B.  B.  Leacock,  Wil¬ 
liam  McGuire,  Joseph  D.  Wilson,  and  Mossrs.  Thos.  H.  Powers,  Henry  Alexander, 
Stewart  L.  Woodford,  LL.D.  Committee  on  Constitution  and  Canons — Rev.  Mar¬ 
shall  B.  Smith,  Rev.  Edward  D.  Neilll  Rev.  Walter  Windeyer,  and  Messrs.  William 
Aldrich,  Alex.  G.  Tyng,  Elbridge  G.  Keith.  Committee  on  Finance — Messrs.  Benja¬ 
min  Aycrigg,  Ph.  D.,  James  L.  Morgan,  Albert  Crane.  Trustees  of  the  Sustentation 
Fund — Messrs.  Thomas  H.  Powers,  George  M.  Tibbitts,  Benjamin  Acyrigg,  Ph.  D., 
James  L.  Morgan,  Albert  Crane.  Missionary  Jurisdiction  of  the  West — Bishop 
Charles  Edward  Cheney,  DD.  Standing  Committee — Revs.  Joseph  D.  Wilson, 
Charles  H.  Tucker,  and  Messrs.  Alexander  G.  Tyng,  C.  S.  Hutchins. 

The  Third  General  Council  will  be  held  (D.  V.)  in  Christ  Church,  Chicago, 
Illinois,  on  the  Second  Wednesday  of  May,  1875. 

MEMBERS  OF  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL,  1874. 

Clerical  Members. 

Bishop  George  David  Cummins,  d.d.,  Presiding  Bishop. 

Bishop  Charles  Edward  Cheney,  d.d.,  Missionary  Bishop,  and  Hector  of  Christ 
Church ,  Chicago,  III. 

Rev.  R.  H.  Bourne,  Chaplain,  New  York  City. 

Rev.  William  V.  Feltwell,  Rector  of  Christ  Church ,  Moncton ,  Province  of  New 
Brunswick. 


u 


CHAPTER  I. 


May  13,  1874. 

Rev.  Mason  Gallagher,  Paterson,  N.  J. 

Rev.  Benjamin  B.  Leacock,  D.D.,  House  of  the  Evangelists,  New  York  City. 

Rev.  Thomas  J.  McFadden,  Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Rock  of  Ages,  Littleton 
Colorado. 

Rev.  William  McGuire,  Rector,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Rev.  Johnston  McCormac,  Rector  of  Ref  ormed  Episcopal  Church,  Ottawa,  Canada, 
Rev.  Edward  D.  Neill,  Provost  of  Macalester  College,  Minneapolis,  Minnesota. 

Rev.  William  H.  Reid,  Rector  of  Church  of  the  Incarnation,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  William  T.  Sabine,  Rector  of  First  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  New  York 
City. 

Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  Residing  at  Passaic,  N.  J. 

Rev.  Thompson  L.  Smith,  Lexington,  Missouri. 

Rev.  Charles  H.  Tucker,  Rector  of  Emmanuel  Church ,  Chicago ,  Illinois. 

Rev.  Joseph  D.  Wilson,  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Peoria,  Illinois. 

Rev.  Walter  Windeyer,  Rector  of  First  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  Phila¬ 
delphia. 

Lay  Delegates. 


Brooklyn,  N.  Y. — Church  of  the  Incarnation. — lion.  Stewart  L.  Woodford,  ll.d. 
Chicago,  Illinois. — Christ  Church. — William  E.  Wheeler,  Elbridge  G.  Keith, 
Bryan  Pliilpot,  William  Aldrich,  A.  F.  Bartow,  William  R.  Hoodless. 
Emmanuel  Church. — Julius  Wooster. 

East  Liberty,  Pennsylvania. — Josiah  Holmes. 

Littleton,  Colorado — Church  of  the  Rock  of  Ages. 

Moncton,  New  Brunswick. — Christ  Church. — Lewis  Carvell. 

New  York  City. — First  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. — Robert  McNeilly,  m.d., 
Robert  Killen,  John  D.  Smedley,  Ralph  L.  Anderton. 

Ottawa,  Canada. — Reformed  Episcopal  Church. — Henry  Alexander,  Richard  A. 
Bradley. 

Peoria,  Illinois. — Christ  Church. — Alexander  G.  Tyng,  William  A.  Beasley. 
Philadelphia. — First  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. — Thomas  H.  Powers. 

Second  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. — Thomas  Moore,  William  Maris,  Jr. 
Washington,  D.  C. — Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 

Permanent  Lay  Members. 

[Signers  of  the  Original  Call,  who  were  present  and  voted  in  the  First  General  Coun¬ 
cil  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.'] 


Benjamin  Aycrigg,  ph.d., 
Theodore  Bourne, 

Albert  Crane, 

James  L.  Dawes, 

William  S.  Doughty, 

John  G.  Floyd,  Jr., 
George  H.  Gardiner, 
William  H.  Gilder, 
Thomas  J.  Hamilton. 


Charles  D.  Kellogg, 
James  L.  Morgan, 
Samuel  Mulliken, 
Frederick  A.  Pell, 

G.  A.  Sabine,  m.d., 
Jeremiah  H.  Taylor, 
George  M.  Tibbitts, 
Herbert  B.  Turner, 


May  14.  Tribune.  Report  of  Council . ii. 

May  15.  Tribune  and  Herald  reports  of  Council . . ii. 


CHAPTER  I. 


15 


May  18,  1874. 

May  18.  Rev.  J.  T.  McEadden  ordained  Presbyter.  (Trib.) 

May  19.  Times  mistakes  the  intention . : . xi.  40. 

May  20.  Candidates  degenerating  in  P.  E.  C . iii. 

May  21.  Church  and  State.  “Heated;  creed;  blasphemous.  ” . ii. 

June  1,  1874.  H.  B.  Turner  on  the  R.  E.  C . xiv.  5. 

June  1.  Comparison  of  Prayer  Books.  (Pamphlets  on  sale). 

June  3.  Episcopalian.  Answer  to  May  21,  Ch.  St . ii. 

JuneS.  Bishop  Odenheimer.  “  Unchurchly,”  etc . ii. 

June  3.  Church  Journal.  “Queerest  Bishop.” . ii. 

June  3.  Churchman.  “  Drunken  slave.” . ii. 

JuneS.  Rev.  Dr.  Stewart.  “Maggots — god  of  flies.” . ii. 

June  3.  Kentucky  Convention . ii. 

June  3.  Bishop  Smith,  of  Kentucky,  refers  to  Anti-Christ . ii. 


June  3.  Brooklyn  (Epis.)  Church  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  was  or¬ 
ganized  June  1,  with  Rev.  W.  H.  Reid,  Rector,  and  Stewart  L.  Woodford,  Herbert 
B.  Turner,  James  L.  Morgan,  John  Edwards,  Thomas  H.  Stevens,  Charles  W. 
Swan,  as  Vestry. 

June  3.  Pittsburgh  (Epis.)  Rev.  J.  D.  Wilson  and  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher, 
explained  the  cause,,  origin,  and  progress  of  the  R.  E.  C. 

June  3.  Bishop  Stevens,  of  Penna,  (Epis.)  is  quoted  from  in  his  annual  ad¬ 
dress  on  May  20,  by  Louis  Peck.  (See  J une  10). 

June  3.  Ottawa  (Epis.)  Rev.  J.  McCormac  is  Rector  of  R.  E.  C. 

June  3.  Moncton,  N.  B.  Rev.  E.  S.  W.  Pentreath,  late  of  the  Rutherford 
Park,  P.  E.  C.,  is  Rector  in  Church  of  England. 

June  3.  Low.  Virginia  Convention.  Results . iii. 

June  4.  Prayer  Book,  changes  by  (Ch.  St.) . iii. 

June  4.  Present  Crisis,  by  Tribune . iii. 

June  10.  Bishop  Howe.  “  Fight  and  not, retreat.” . ii. 

June  10.  Bishop  Stevens.  “Falsehood,  misrepresentations,”  etc . ii. 

June  10.  Open  letter  of  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  to  Bp.  Stevens . ii. 

June  10.  Rev.  T.  J.  McFadden  ordained  May  17. 

June  10.  High  and  Low  differences,  by  Martin  Farquahar  Tupper . iii. 

June  10.  Philadelphia  Second  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.)  will  hold  services  early  in 
September. 

June  11.  Bishop  Robertson  (Ch.  St.)  is  a  Protestant . ii. 

June  11.  Liberty  of  Laymen  (Ch.  St.)  is  “greatest  in  P.  E.  C.” . iii. 

June  11.  Church  Journal  (Ch.  St.)  “  Ritualism  exists.”. . iii. 

June  11.  Compromise.  Dr.  Magee  in  Parliament . iii. 

June  11.  Evangelist,  Presbyterian  (Ch.  St.)  refers  to  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill  (April 

22),  and  says :  “  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should  be  enslaved  by  tradition.  .  .  . 
There  are  not  a  few  Presbyterians  who  have  felt  that  our  worship  might  be  ren¬ 


dered  more  attractive.” 

June  12.  Ritualism  in  Ottawa . iii. 

June  13.  Bishop  H.  W.  Lee  against  the  R.  E.  C.  and  Ritualism . ii. 

June  24.  Bishop  Cummins  deposed.  (See  July  8.) . viii.  4. 

June  25.  Bishop  Clark.  “  A  few  discontented.” . ii. 

June  25.  Bishop  Williams,  of  Conn.  “  Worse  than  death.” . ii. 


16 


CHAPTER  I. 


June  25,  1874. 

June  25.  Bishop  Lee,  of  Del.  “  Canon  evaded  in  1868  and  1871.” 


June  25.  Christian  Union.  “  No  freedom  for  low  church.” . ii. 

July  2.  Bishop  Alford.  “Maybe  compelled  to  quit.” . ii. 

July  2.  Bishop  Kerfoot.  “  Sloughing  off “  Bank  clerk.” . ii. 

July  8.  Injunction  by  the  Bishop  in  Sussex,  N.  B . iii. 

July  8.  Distinctions  between  the  R.  E.  C.  and  the  P.  E.  C . • . ii. 

July  8.  Bishop  Paddock.  “  Headship  of  a  schism.” . ii. 

July  8.  Bishop  Cummins  deposition  on  June  24 . viii,  4  ;  ii. 


July  8.  Pittsburgh  (Epis.)  Rev.  Joseph  S.  Malone,  late  Rector  of  Immanuel 
Church,  Louisville,  has  accepted  a  call  to  the  First  R.  E.  C.  of  Redemption,  at 
Pittsburgh. 

July  8.  Free  Church  of  England  (Epis.)  All  documents  can  be  had  of  Mr. 
F.  S.  Merryweather,  Registrar,  New  Malden,  Sussex.  Several  details  are  copied 
from  the  Rock,  to  which  they  were  sent  on  enquiry  on  the  announcement  of  the 
Federative  Union  with  the  R.  E.  C. 

July  8.  Ritualism  in  Toronto  ;  spicy  discussion . iii. 

July  9.  Bishop  Gregg.  “Miserable  following,”  etc . ii ;  iii. 

July  9.  St.  Albans,  Holborn.  Ritualism . iii. 

July  15.  Church  Liberty,  by  Dr.  Newton . . . iii. 

July  15.  Bishop  Talbot.  “  Unhappy,  schism,  treachery,  betray.”,  .ii ;  xiii — 10. 

July  15.  Dr.  Newton’s  pamphlet — services  ad  libitim .  . iii. 

July  15.  Louisville,  Ky.  (Epis.)  “  Resolved,  That  as  members  of  Emanuel 
P.  E.  C.,  we  withdraw  from  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  connect  ourselves  with  the  R.  E.  C.” 
The  communicants  present  voted  33  for  and  10  against.  The  church  will  be  open 
as  usual.  The  ownership  of  the  church  property  comes  in  question. 

July  15.  Minneapolis  (Epis.)  on  April  22,  1874.  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill  took  a  let¬ 
ter  from  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  the  R.  E.  C.  Some  weeks  ago,  he  commenced 
services  in  St.  Paul.  Last  Sunday  afternoon  (July  G)  he  held  the  first  service  in 
Minneapolis.  The  movement  is  endorsed  by  all  the  Evangelical  Churches  in  the 
city — Presbyterian,  Westminster  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Plymouth,  Congrega¬ 
tional,  First  Methodist  (with  the  names  of  their  ministers).  .  .  Almost  every  denom¬ 
ination  was  represented  except  the  Protestant  Episcopal. 

July  22.  Louisville,  Ky.  (Epis.)  July  16,  “  Resolved,  That  the  congregation 
of  Emanuel  P.  E.  C.  desire  to  be  received  into  communion  with  the  R.  E.  C.”  The 
congregation  retains  their  former  house  of  worship,  and  Wardens  and  Vestrymen, 
and  has  200  members  to  begin  with. 

July  22.  Minneapolis  (Epis.)  At  the  meeting,  July  15,  Dr.  Neill  showed  that 
the  R.  E.  C.  is  a  restoration . ii. 

July  22.  Free  Church  of  England  (Epis.)  “  The  twelfth  annual  Convoca¬ 
tion  held  last  week  in  London,  lasted  three  days  [in  June].  It  was  then  adjourned 
to  the  Autumn  to  meet  Bishop  Cummins  and  Col.  Aycrigg,  the  deputation  from 
the  R.  E.  C.  of  America.  .  .  .  There  are  now  exactly  40  free  churches  in  England. 
...  52  county  districts  being  subdivided  into  7  Dioceses.  .  .  .  Each  Diocesan  dis¬ 
trict  will  have  its  own  President  and  Secretary.  .  .  .  Each  has  its  own  quarterly  As¬ 
sembly  and  reports.  ...  to  the  Council  at  Westminster.  .  .  .  About  £1,200  expended 
during  the  year  now  ended.  .  .  .  £200  present  debt.” 

July  29.  Peoria,  Ill.  (Epis.)  A.  G.  Tyng  writes  that  their  new  church  will 


CHAPTER  I. 


17 


July  29,  1874. 

seat  from  500  to  GOO,  and  is  too  small.  The  parish  numbers  about  100  families,  and 
has  over  600  Sunday  scholars  ;  has  built  a  study  and  vestry-room,  and  commenced 
a  building  for  Sunday-school  and  weekly  prayer  meetings.  The  whole  will  be  fin¬ 
ished  without  a  debt,  and  the  income  fully  sufficient  for  all  expenses.  The  uni¬ 
versal  testimony  is,  after  attending  our  services,  that  the  R.  E.  C.  is  like  the  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  they  knew  in  their  boyhood.” 

July  29.  Jefferson  City,  Mo.  (Epis.)  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  organized. 

Aug.  5,  1874.  Bishop  Vail.  “  But  one  alternative.” . ii. 

Aug.  13.  Church  Liberty  (Ch.  St.)  endorses  July  15,  Dr.  Newton . iii. 

Aug.  19.  Protestant  Episcopal  Conference . ii. 

Aug.  19.  Church  and  State.  “  Miserably  abortive.” . ii. 

Aug.  19.  Cheney — Whitehouse  case . iii. 

Aug.  19.  Castle  Bock,  Colorado  (Epis.)  Rev.  Harold  Brookes.  Services  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  in  the  Court  House.  Decided  to  build  a  rectory. 

Aug.  19.  Louisville,  Ky.  (Epis.)  Rev.  W.  T.  Sabine,  of  New  York,  inaugu¬ 
rated  services  of  R.  E.  C.  on  Aug.  9. 

Aug.  27.  Church  of  England  . iii. 

Sept.  10.  Bishop  Whittingham.  “  But  one  candidate.” . iii. 

Sept.  10.  Bishop  Clarkson.  “Conscientious.” . ii. 

Sept.  10.  Ecclesiastical  Courts  (Ch.  St.)  “Chaotic.” . iii. 

Sept.  10.  Geographical  Churclimanship  (Ch.  St.) . ,,iii. 

Sept.  16.  H.  B.  Turner  (Epis.)  comparison  ;  pamphlet . xiv.  5. 

Sept.  24.  Dr.  Seymour  (Ch.  St.)  “Ritualism  unabated.” . iii. 

Sept.  26.  Ritualism  ( Tribune ) . iii. 

Sept.  30.  Ritual  and  Appeal  requested . iii. 

Oct.  1,  1874.  Bishop  Tozer  in  N.  Y.  Convention . iii. 

Oct.  l.“St.  Mary  the  Virginadmitted  to  N.  Y.  Convention . iii. 

Oct.  8. Greek  priest  invited  by  Gen.  Con . . iii. 

Oct.  8  to  Nov.  3.  General  Convention  of  the  P.  E.  C. .  .iii  ;  Oct.  8  to  Nov.  3. 

Oct.  12.  Pan  Anglican  vanity  did  not  succeed . iii. 

Oct.  12.  Rev.  Dr.  Mead — Mr.  Shattuck  in  General  Convention . iii. 

* _ 

Oct.  12.  “  Toleration”  of  all  Romish  opinions . iii. 

Oct.  13.  Arbitrary  power  in  the  P.  E.  C . iii. 

Oct.  13.  Representation.  Old  Dioceses  may  be  swamped  by  new . iii. 

Oct.  19.  Ritualism  ( Trib .),  origin  and  progress . iii. 

Oct.  19.  Anglican  Bishops  and  Ritualism . iii. 

Oct.  19.  Board  of  Miss,  of  P.  E.  C.,  receipts  less  than  last  year . iii. 

Oct.  19.  Catholicity  defined  by  Dr.  Washburn . iii. 

Oct.  29.  Filioque  question  settled . iii. 

Oct.  21.  Rev.  James  A.  Latane  formally  received  into  the  R.  E.  C. 

Oct.  22.  Appeal  approved  by  House  of  Bishops.  Dr.  Seymour  rejected . iii. 

Oct.  22.  Rev.  W.  S.  Perkins  (Ch.  St.)  of  P.  E.  C.  joins  the  R.  E.  C. 

Oct.  22.  Rev.  E.  Harwood  (Ch.  St.)  refers  to  R.  E.  C . ii. 

Oct.  23.  Gen.  Dix  and  300  communicants  say  no  restrictions  on  Ritual . iii. 

Oct.  23.  Ritualism.  Com.  on  Canons  propose  to  forbid  incense  and  crucifix.. iii. 

Oct.  24.  Baptism  of  Infants,  Regeneration  optional . iii. 

Oct.  24.  Changes  suggested  by  Com.  on  Canons . iii. 


CHAPTER  I. 


18 

October  24,  1874. 

Oct,  24.  No  laymen  in  two  Standing  Committees . iii 

Oct.  26.  Bishops  propose  to  inhibit  immediately . iii ;  viii.  5. 

Oct.  23.  Dr.  Seymour  is  Dean  of  the  Gen.  Theol.  Sem . iii ;  xii.  56. 

Oct.  23.  Dr.  De  Koven  repeats  his  remarks  of  1871 . iii ;  xii.  54,  55. 

Oct.  26.  Ritualistic  books  quoted  against  Dr.  De  Koven . iii. 

Oct.  27.  Bishop  Cummins  by  Mr.  Shattuck . iii. 

Oct.  27.  Mr.  Andrews.  “Bishop  without  a  Church . iii. 

Oct.  27.  Rev.  Mr.  Bolton.  “  Ritualism  is  Romanism.” . iii. 

Oct.  27.  Rev.  Dr.  Garrett.  “  Negatives  will  not  do.” . iii. 

Oct.  27.  Rev.  Dr.  Clark.  “  Ritualism  Exists  ” . iii. 

Oct.  27.  Mr.  Blanchard.  “  This  canon  is  nugatory  ” . iii. 

Oct.  27.  Rev.  Dr.  Hall.  “This  canon  will  suppress  ritualism  ” . iii. 

Oct.  27.  Vote  for  canon  38  and  34  ;  against  2  and  3 . iii. 

Oct.  28.  Court  of  Appeals  not  expedient . iii. 

Oct.  29.  Infant  Baptism,  Report,  Dr.  Andrew's,  Adams,  Burgwin,  Shattuck, 
"Welsh,  Sullivan,  Huntingdon,  Wilder,  Garrison . . .  .iii. 

Oct.  29.  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  Adams,  Sullivan,  Huntingdon,  Gar¬ 
rison . iii  ;  xiii,  25. 

Oct.  29.  ‘‘Let  the  Prayer-Book  alone  v . iii. 

Oct.  30.  Canon  on  Ritual,  Committee  of  Conference . iii. 

Oct.  30.  Not  7  self-sustaining  parishes  in  Alabama,  Dr.  Fulton . iii. 

Oct.  30.  Dr.  Seymour,  Documents  on  Oct.  21 . iii ;  xii.  56 

Oct.  31.  General  Theological  Seminary.  Trustees . . iii. 

Oct.  31.  Canon  on  Ritual,  as  cut  down  by  the  Bishops . iii. 

Oct.  31.  Dr.  De  Koven  likes  the  change . iii. 

Oct.  31.  Infant  Baptism,  canon  of  (Oct.  24)  approved  by  Vinton  and  An¬ 
drews  . iii. 

Oct.  31.  Infant  Baptism,  canon  of  (Oct.  24)  opposed  by  Beck,  Adams,  Meigs, 
Fulton.  Lost,  5  and  6  ayes  to  34  and  24  noes . iii. 

Oct.  31.  R.  E.  C.,  by  Beck,  Adams,  Meigs,  Fulton . . iii. 

Oct.  31.  Canon  on  Ritual  carried ;  38  and  28  ayes,  and  2  and  1  no  ;  so  incense 
and  crucifix  may  be  used,  the  House  recedes  (Oct.  30) . iii. 

Nov.  1.  St.  Johns,  New  Brunswick  (Nov.  18,  St.  Johns). 

Nov.  2.  Many  subjects  discussed  in  General  Convention . iii. 

Nov.  3.  Abandonment  of  Communion,  instant  Inhibition . .iii. 

Nov.  3.  Pastoral  Letter  of  House  of  Bishops . iii. 

Nov.  3.  Changes  in  Church  Services.  Tribune  of  Nov.  2 . iii. 

Nov.  3.  Ritual  Legislation.  Tribune  of  Nov.  2 .  iii. 

Nov.  3.  New  Canon  Nugatory.  Tribune  of  Nov.  2 . iii. 

Nov.  3.  Kentucky  Diocese,  statistics.  Iribune  of  Nov.  2 . iii. 

Nov.  4.  Dean  Cridge,  of  Victoria,  B.  C.(Ch.  St.)  “  Dean  Edward  Cridge,  of 
Victoria,  British  Columbia,  has  seceded  from  the  Church  of  England,  with  350 
parishioners. . .  .Mr.  Cridge  is  the  pioneer  minister  of  the  Province,  having  been  sent 
out  by  the  Hudson  Bay  Company.” 

Nov.  4.  “  Rev.  W.  S.  Perkins  (Ch.  St.),  a  presbyter  in  the  Diocese  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  and  for  many  years  Rector  of  St.  James’  Church,  has  united  with 
the  R.  E.  G” 


CHAPTER  I. 


19 


November  4,  1874. 

Nov.  4.  Changes  in  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (Ch.  St.)  are 
given  in  full . . iii. 

Nov.  8.  Toronto  (B.  A.)  Bishop  Cummins,  assisted  by  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith,  held 
service  and  delivered  an  address,  as  on  Nov.  1  at  St  John,  Then,  Nov.  9,  the 
same  occurred  in  Brantford,  whence  Bishop  Cummins  went  to  New  York. 

Nov.  11.  Goddard,  of  St.  Andrews.  “Ritualism  is  not  dead” . ii;  iii* 

Nov.  11.  Illinois  (Epis.)  A.  G.  Tyng,  of  Peoria,  says  that,  “Full  one-fourth  of 
the  parishes  that  voted  for  Bishop  Whiteliouse  have  ceased  to  exist  ;  many  new 
parishes  have  started  and  died ;  some  are  still  struggling,  but  can  not  live  long, 
and  there  are  about  twenty  good  church  buildings  unused,  and  never  will  be  used 
again  by  the  P.  E.  C.” .  xiii.  25. 

Nov.  11.  To  the  Friends  of  the  R.  E.  C. : — 

The  Standing  Committee  of  the  General  Council,  having  been  led  to  the  conclu¬ 
sion  that  full  information  should  be  obtained  and  disseminated  with  regard  to  all 
the  operations  of  our  Church,  adopted  at  a  meeting  held  October  21st,  1874,  the  fol. 
lowing  resolutions : 

Resolved,  That  a  Circular  be  sent  to  all  who  are  supposed  to  be  friendly  to  our 
Church,  requesting  that  they  send  contributions,  for  general  purposes,  or  for  speci¬ 
fied  objects,  to  James  L.  Morgan,  Esq.,  Treasurer,  47  Fulton  Street,  New  York. 

Resolved,  That  the  same  persons  be  requested  to  send  all  information,  bearing 
upon  the  interests  of  our  Church,  which  they  now  have,  or  may  from  time  to  time 
obtain,  to  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith,  38  Bible  House,  New  York  ;  and  that  general  abstracts 
from  the  same  be  from  time  to  time  prepared  for  the  general  information  of  all  con¬ 
cerned. 

In  accordance  with  the  spirit  and  intent  of  the  above  resolutions,  the  following 
facts  are  presented  for  your  consideration  : 

First .  The  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  is  eminently  a  Missionary  Church  ; 
having  no  endowments,  and  no  means  of  carrying  on  its  general  work  apart  from 
the  voluntary  contributions  of  those  who  may  agree  with  its  principles,  and  who 
desire  its  establisment  as  a  liberal  and  orderly  branch  of  Christ’s  Church  in  the 
world. 

Second.  Congregations  of  this  Church  have  been  established,  and  applications 
have  been  made  for  the  establishment  of  others  in  localities  where  it  is  desirable  to 
have  such  congregations,  but  where  there  is  not  sufficient  financial  ability  to  sus¬ 
tain  them  without  aid  from  our  Sustentation  Fund,  or  from  the  gifts  of  those  who 
are  in  sympathy  with  our  Church. 

Third.  The  Sustentation  Fund — which  is  designed  to  aid  ministers  and  feeble 
congregations — has  been  supplied  thus  far  by  a  few  individuals,  and  is  not  adequate 
to  meet  the  rapidly  increasing  demands  made  upon  it.  These  demands,  which  should 
be  met,  come  from  ministers  who  have  left  comfortable  positions,  and  gone  forth  in 
faith  to  do  the  work  of  this  Church  ;  and  from  congregations  which  have  had  to 
relinquish  their  hold  upon  Church  property,  and  commence  their  work  anew  in  the 
midst  of  opposition,  not  only  from  those  whose  principles  are  antagonistic  to  ours, 
but  also  from  those  who,  having  heretofore  entertained  the  views  we  now  uphold, 
appear  at  present  to  misapprehend  our  motives  and  principles. 

Fourth.  It  is  very  desirable  that  not  only  the  ministers  and  members  of  our 
own  communion,  but  also  the  Christian  world,  should  be  more  fully  informed  as 


20 


CHAPTER  I. 


November  11,  1874. 

to  our  movements  ;  and  tliis  desirable  result  can  only  be  attained  by  concentrating 
the  necessary  information  at  some  one  point  whence  it  can  be  disseminated  in  print, 
or  otherwise. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  we  ask  our  friends  who  may  be  disposed  to  contribute  to 
the  cause— be  the  contribution  large  or  small — to  send  the  same,  either  for  general 
or  specified  purposes,  and  to  forward  any  information  bearing  upon  our  cause,  to 
the  persons  named  in  the  foregoing  resolutions.  Above  all,  we  ask  the  prayers  of 
all,  of  every  communion,  who  are  in  sympathy  with  our  work. 

On  behalf  of  the  Standing  Committee, 

B.  B.  Leacock, 

Note. — The  Committee  Room  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  No.  88  Bible 
House,  New  York,  is  open  on  Monday,  Wednesday,  and  Friday,  from  11  A.  M.  to  2  p. 
h.,  at  which  hours  we  should  be  glad  to  meet  any  friends  of  our  work. 

Nov.  11.  Pastoral  Letter  (Epis.)  critique . iii. 

Nov.  11.  R.  E.  C.  (Ch.  St.)  R.  E.  C.  disappointed. — Drift  of  the  Church. — Bap¬ 
tismal  Regeneration  and  Charity. — Rejoice  {Standard  of  the  Gross),  Methodist,  Inde¬ 
pendent,  Church  Journal,  “  withered,  dumb.” — Parliament  controls  the  Church  of 


England . iii. 

Nov.  3  4.  Ritualist  on  the  new  canon — Low  Church . . iii. 


Nov.  15.  Ottawa,  Canada,  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  in  the  morning,  and  Rev.  Walter 
Windeyer  in  the  evening,  preached  in  the  Court  House  to  the  congregation  which 
is  building  an  ornamental  church  to  hold  about  600,  and  opposite  to  a  public  square 
in  this  beautiful  city. 

Nov.  18.  Ritualistic  exhibition  (Ch.  St.) . iii. 

Nov.  18.  Church  and  State  editorial,  quoted  and  answered. ii.  Dec.  16  ;  xiii.  10. 

Nov.  18.  New  York  First  R.  E  C.  (Epis.)  Address  of  Bishop  Cummins  stat¬ 
ing  facts  and  conclusions  respecting  the  late  General  Convention. 

Nov.  18.  St.  Johns,  Moncton,  Sussex,  N.  B.  (Epis.  and  B.  A.)  On  Nov.  1st, 
Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  and  Rev.  W.  Y.  Feltwell  (the  rector)  assisted  Bishop  Cummins 
at  the  Communion  service  at  St.  Johns.  In  the  afternoon  the  Bishop  delivered  an 
address  showing  wherein  the  R.  E.  C.  differs  from  the  P.  E.  C.,  quoting  from  the 
opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Coleridge,  of  Great  Britain,  that  the  Ritualists  have  a  legal 
status  in  the  Church  of  England  (just  received  in  the  London  Times).  In  the  even¬ 
ing  the  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  preached  a  gospel  sermon  to  the  Scotch  Presbyterian 
congregation,  while  the  Rev.  Dr.  Waters,  the  pastor,  was  in  the  pulpit.  On  Mon¬ 
day,  Nov.  2,  the  Bishop  and  Rev.  W.  Y.  Feltwell,  and  Lewis  Carvell,  Esq.,  general 
superintendent  of  the  Intercolonial  Railway,  and  B.  Aycrigg  went  to  Moncton, 
where  the  Bishop  delivered  an  address.  On  Tuesday,  Nov.  3,  the  vestry  made  out 
a  call  for  Rev.  J.  Eastburn  Brown,  of  the  Chapel  of  Free  Grace,  New  York.  In  the 
evening,  the  Bishop  delivered  an  address  at  Sussex,  after  the  service,  in  which  one 
minister  of  the  Baptist,  and  one  of  the  Methodist,  and  one  of  the  R.  E.  C.  took  part. 
On  Wednesday  the  party  returned  to  St.  Johns.  On  Thursday,  Nov.  5,  the  Bishop 
and  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  and  B.  Aycrigg  left  for  Boston,  and  arrived  in  Toronto  on 
Saturday,  Nov.  7. 

Nov.  18.  Rev.  J.  Eastburn  Brown  (Ch.  St.),  of  the  Chapel  of  Free  Grace,  has 
withdrawn  from  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  united  with  the  R.  E.  C.  [as  Rector  at  Moncton, 
N.  B.] 


CHAPTER  I. 


21 


November  18,  1874. 

Nov.  18.  Dean  Cridge  (Ch.  St.)  and  350  communicants  of  tlie  Cathedral,  Vic¬ 
toria,  B.  C.,  have  retired  from  the  Church  of  England,  and  identified  themselves 
with  the  R.  E.  C. 

Nov.  25.  Sacerdotalism.  Bishop  of  Lincoln  and  Lord  Coleridge  (Ch.  St.) — 
Ritualism  in  England — Return  of  R.  E.  C.  to  the  P.  E.  C . iii. 

Nov.  25.  Low.  Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson . iii. 

Nov.  25.  Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson  (Epis.)  does  not  interrupt  his  ministerial 
work  a  single  day.  He  will  enter  at  once  on  his  new  field  of  labor  as  pastor  of  the 
Second  R.  E.  C.  of  Philadelphia. 

Nov.  25.  Philadelphia  (Epis.)  Second  R.  E.  C.  assembled  for  the  first  Sunday 
services  on  the  22d  inst.  in  the  hall  on  the  N.  E.  corner  of  18th  street  and  Chestnut. 
Bishop  Cummins  preached  on  the  Christian  Unity  in  the  morning,  and  on  Spiritual 
Worship  in  the  evening.  It  was  announced  that  Dr.  Nicholson  had  accepted  the 
call,  to  begin  Dec.  6. 

Nov.  25.  Lay  Withdrawal  (Epis.)  to  take  charge  of  a  Sunday-school  in  a  R. 
E.  C.  He  gives,  among  other  reasons,  “  The  Convention  assembled  in  full  recogni¬ 
tion  that  the  questions  at  issue  had  fully  culminated  in  a  crisis,  and  by  a  vote  of  7 
clergymen  and  four  laymen  to  one  refused  to  in  any  manner  alter  the  Baptismal 
Service.  The  vote  is  conclusive  that  three-fourths  of  the  Church  are  anti-Low 
Church,  and  that  one-fourth  are  asking  the  three-fourths  to  forswear  their  belief 
and  conviction  for  the  comfort  of  a  meagre  minority.” 

Nov.  25.  Victoria,  B.  C.  (Epis.)  The  Daily  British  Colonist ,  of  Oct.  30,  gives 
the  details  of  the  formation  of  a  R.  E.  C.,  with  Rev.  Dean  Cridge  as  rector. 
“Among  those  present  we  noticed  Mr.  A.  J.  Lang,  J.  P.,  Senator  Macdonald, 
Judge  Pemberton,  R.  Williams,  M.  A.,  B.  N.  Pearse,  R.  Friley,  Sen.,  Judge  Elliott, 
Captain  Deveraux,  Hon.  Dr.  Helmeken,  Councillor  Hayward,  Mr.  Courtney,  Mr. 
Coole,  M.  Chambers.  . .  .The  following  were  appointed  a  provisional  Church  Com¬ 
mittee  :  Sir  James  Douglas,  Senator  Macdonald,  and  Messrs.  Short,  Cowper, 
Pearse,  Newbury,  Hayward,  Siff  kin,  Pemberton,  Englehardt,  Chambers,  Mason,  De 
Weidenhold,  T.  Wilson,  J.  Douglas,  Jr.,  P.  T.  Johnson,  Thorne,  R.  Williams,  P. 
Lester,  and  Captain  Deveraux.”  “Resolved,  That  Mr.  Cridge  be  requested  to  com¬ 
municate  with  Bishop  Cummins  or  other  authority  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  and  to  take 
steps  for  our  full  admission  into  its  communion.” 

Nov.  28.  Louisville  Courier  says :  “  The  R.  E.  C.  congregation  will  to-mor¬ 
row  dedicate  its  new  church  on  Broadway,  between  5th  and  6th  streets.” 

Nov.  30.  Louisville  Courier  gives  the  full  sermon  by  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith,  of 
Passaic,  N.  J.,  on  the  opening  of  the  new  church . ii ;  xiv.  6. 

Dec.  3.  Anniversary  {Times)  in  Brooklyn  on  Dec.  2,  rector,  Rev.  W.  H.  Reid, 
with  addresses  by  ex-L^eut.-Governor  Woodford,  Herbert  B.  Turner,  and  Rev. 
Mason  Gallagher. 

Dec.  3.  New  York  ( Bejmblic ).  Anniversary  of  founding  the  R.  E.  C.  on  Dec. 
2, 1873  ;  rector,  W.  T.  Sabine,  with  addresses  by  B.  Aycrigg,  John  Irving,  Esq., 


and  Rev.  B.  B.  Leacock,  D.D. 

Dec.  3.  Republic  editorial  on  the  R.  E.  C . ii. 

Dec.  4.  Presbyterian  Union  (of  Dec.  3) .  . xv.  13,  14. 


Dec.  7.  Newark  ( Trib .)  R.  E.  C.  probable  organization.  A  week  ago,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  W.  R.  Nicholson  preached  his  farewell  sermon.  .  .  .  Yesterday,  Bishop 


CHAPTER  I... 


99 

December  7,  1874. 

Cummins  preached  on  the  “  Counsel  of  Gamaliel  ”  in  the  morning.  The  follow¬ 
ing  is  one  of  the  passages  :  “  Beloved,  all  that  we  have  asked  of  those  who  differ 
from  us  in  the  establishment  of  this  R.  E.  C.  is,  that  they  should  leave  it  to  Gam¬ 
aliel’s  test.  If  it  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to  naught.  If  it  be  of  God,  ye  cannot 
overthrow  it.  Upon  what,  then,  do  we  base  our  confidence  that  it  is  of  God?  It  is 
a  work  begun  in  individual  hearts.  No  concert  of  action,  no  organized  revolution, 
no  dependence  on  human  policy,”  etc.  After  the  morning  services,  were  offered  by 
Mrs.  Col.  Denman,  $5,000  and  two  lots  ;  by  J.  D.  Orton,  James  Bannister,  George 
Miller,  Samuel  Lord,  Jr.,  and  Mr.  Pennington — large  sums.  Several  leaders  in  the 
movement  assured  the  Tribune  reporter  that  moral  and  material  support  to  any 
amount  would  be  forthcoming. 

Dec.  7.  Rev.  W.  M.  Postlethwaite  ( Trib .)  rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Inter¬ 
cession,  Washington  Heights,  New  York  city,  sends  to  Bishop  Potter  his  letter  of 
withdrawal  from  the  P.  E.  C.  (See  Dec.  16.) 

Dec.  7.  Ottawa  Free  Press  gives,  in  full,  the  lecture  of  Rev.  Johnston  Mc- 
Cormac,  of  the  R.  E.  C. 

Dec.  9.  Baptismal  Regeneration  is  the  doctrine  of  the  majority . iii. 

Dec.  9.  Victoria,  B.  C.  (Epis.)  The  First  R.  E.  C.  was  organized  Oct.  28, 1874, 
by  Rev.  Edward  Cridge,  late  Dean  and  Rector  of  Christ  Church  Cathedral,  with  the 
Church  Wardens  and  all  the  Vestry,  a  membership  of  850,  a  Sunday-school  of  150. 
All  the  sittings  were  rented  in  two  hours.  .  .  .  The  congregation  .  .  .  give  up  their 
new  church,  completed  only  two  years  ago,  .  .  .  costing  about  $15,000,  all  .  .  .  by 
themselves  with  the  exception  of  about  $1,400.  Then  follows  the  letter  of  Dean 
Cridge,  “  To  the  Rt.  Rev.  Geo.  Hills,  D.D.,”  in  which  he  gives  his  objection  to  the 
arbitrary  power  proposed  to  be  invested  in  the  Bishop  by  the  proposed  Synod. 

Dec.  9.  Philadelphia  (Epis.)  Second  R.  E.  C.,  Rev.  Dr.  Nicholson  had  com¬ 
munion  last  Sunday.  The  editor  says  :  “  The  sacerdotal  garment,  the  surplice,  was 
not  used,  but  the  plain  preacher’s  gown  only  worn.  For  to  the  minds  of  the  people, 
the  surplice  calls  the  man  using  it  a  priest,  no  matter  how  he  explains,  and  pro¬ 
tests,  and  assures,  and  preaches  to  the  contrary.” 

[These  are  the  individual  views  of  the  editor.  The  R.  E.  C.  lias  no  such  canon. 
With  our  thoroughly  Protestant  “  Declaration  of  Principles”  (xi.  1 — 4),  we  have  no 
fear  about  the  dress.  The  Bishop  and  all  the  members  of  the  first  Standing  Com¬ 
mittee  desired  to  establish  the  custom  of  wearing  only  the  black  academic  gown. 
But  we  all  yielded  our  preferences,  with  the  hope  that  gradually  the  black  gown 
would  supersede  the  Bishop’s  robes  and  the  surplice.  B.  A.] 

Dec.  9.  Louisville,  Ky.  (Epis.)  There  are  about  115  communicants  and  300 
regular  attendants.  The  congregation  still  hold  their  former  church.  .'.  .  At  the 
last  Diocesan  Convention  the  old  trustees  were  instructed  by  the  Convention  to.  .  . 
enter  suit  for  the  recovery  of  the  church.  (Nov.  30). 

Dec.  9.  Mr.  Postlethwaite’s  letter  (Ch.  St.)  (See  Dec.  16). 

Dec.  10.  Bishop  Cheney  {Trib.)  Extract  from  a  sermon  on  Sunday  last. 
“  One  year  ago  they  met  to  lay  the  foundation  of  the  R.  E.  C.  There  were  7 
ministers,  including  Bishop  Cummins,  and  of  laymen  perhaps  not  more  than  120 
'had  signed  the  Declaration  of  Principles”  [and  only  17  who  were  present  and 
voted].  “  They  had  not  one  organized  congregation.  To-day  they  have  40  minis¬ 
ters,  34  organized  churches,  and  over  3,000  communicants.” 


CHAPTER  I. 


23 


December  12,  1874. 

Dec.  12.  Impartiality  by  Rev.  Dr.  Craik . iii. 

Dec.  14.  Ottawa  Times  says:  “Yesterday  afternoon  Rev.  Johnson  McCormac 
(R.  E.  C.)  was  assisted  in  the  services  by  Rev.  Mr.  Greenfield,  a  clergyman  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Mr.  Greenfield  has  traveled  over  a  great  part  of  the  world; 

.  .  .  he  deemed  it  proper  to  extend  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  as  the  members 
of  the  R.  E.  C.  only  differed  in  regard  to  certain  ritualistic  practices,  while  their 
Creed  was  essentially  the  same.” 

Dec.  16.  A  Divided  House . iii. 

Dec.  16.  Rev.  Dr.  Nicholson  (Epis.)  Newark  Advertiser ,  of  Nov.  25-30, 
gives  the  leave-taking  and  address  at  “  Old  Trinity  ”  P.  E.  C.  at  Newark,  on  Dr. 
Nicholson  leaving  the  P.  E.  C.  to  join  the  R.  E.  C.  and  take  the  rectorship  of  the 
Second  R.  E.  C.  in  Philadelphia.  ...  Dr.  Nicholson  has  been  “  scarcely  three 
years  ”  at  Newark. 

Dec.  16.  Victoria,  B.  C.  (Epis.)  Sir  James  Douglas  offers  to  donate  two  lots 
and  one-tenth  of  any  sum  not  exceeding  $10,000  for  a  church.  Senator  Macdonald 
offers  to  donate  one  of  three  lots  or  $500  cash.  Stipend  $2,000  ;  at  vestry  meeting, 
Nov.  24, 1874. 

Dec.  16.  Low.  Rev.  W.  M.  Postletli waite  leaves  the  P.  E.  C . iii. 

Dec.  16.  Low.  “  The  door  shut  gently  ” . iii. 

Dec.  16.  Jefferson  City,  Missouri  (Epis.)  The  R.  E.  C.  established  by  Rev. 
Thompson  L.  Smith,  has  now  Rev.  Mr.  Brooks.  .  .  .When  four  weeks  old  the  Sun¬ 
day-school  had  “upward  of  one  hundred  scholars.” 

Dec.  16.  Kansas  City  (Epis.)  The  Times  says  that  Rev.  T.  L.  Smith  has 
established  another  congregation  in  that  city. 

Dec.  16.  Answer  to  (Ch.  St.)  of  Nov.  18 . ii. 

Dec.  21.  Ordination  (Trib.)  Mr.  Edwin  Potter  ordained  Presbyter  at  the  First 
R.  E.  C.,  corner  4th  avenue  and  47th  street,  New  York,  on  Dec.  20,  by  Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins,  assisted  by  Rev.  Dr.  Leacock,  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith,  and  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher. 
The  sermon  preached  by  the  Bishop  is  given  in  full. 

Dec.  23.  Louisville,  Ky.  (Epis.)  Emmanuel  Church  property  is  in  suit  in  the 
civil  court.  .  .  .  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson,  of  South  Carolina,  has  accepted  the  call  of 
the  R.  E.  C.  (See 

Dec.  23.  Newark,  N.  J.  (Epis.)  First  service  [in  New  Jersey]  of  the  R.  E.  C., 
was  in  Association  Hall,  Dec.  6.  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher  read  service.  Bishop 
Cummins  preached  the  sermon,  and  requesting  those  to  remain  who  desired  to  form 
a  congregation,  over  500  waited.  In  the  evening  more  than  1,500  were  present ; 
Rev.  W,  M.  Postlethwaite  took  part.  The  Bishop  gave  a  history  of  the  Prayer 
Book  and  the  difference  between  the  Reformed  prayer  book  and  its  predecessors, 
“mainly  with  respect  to  Apostolic  Succession,  Church  Exclusiveness,  Baptismal  Re¬ 
generation,  and  Sacerdotalism.”.  .  .  One  gentleman  presented  $250,  another  $500 
a  year  if  the  Church  should  be  free,  another  presented  a  lot  worth  $10,000  for  a 
Mission  Church.  A  minister  will  be  immediately  invited. 

Dec.  23.  New  Prayer  Book  (Epis.)  Rev.  Mr.  Greenfield,  of  the  Church  of 
England  (Dec.  14,  Ottawa) . ii. 

Dec.  23.  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson  (Epis.)  has  resigned  St.  Paul’s  P.  E.  C.,  Sum¬ 
merville,  S.  C. 

Dec.  23.  Low.  Arid  so  we  went  toward  Rome  ;  Greeks 


iii. 


CHAPTER  I. 


24 

December  24,  1874. 

Dec.  24.  Newark,  N.  J.  ( Ohs .)  135  names  put  on  cards,  of  those  prepared  to 
join  in  forming  a  R.  E.  C.,  “of  which  50  are  late  members  of  Trinity  Church,  and 


the  remainder  from  other  Episcopal  churches  of  the  city.” 

Dec.  24.  Low.  Rev.  W.  M.  Postleth waite . iii. 

Dec,  25.  Midnight  Mass  in  New  York . iii. 

Dec.  30.  High.  Manning  on  Bishops . iii. 

Dec.  30.  Low.  Eucharistic  vestments  in  England  . iii. 

Dec.  30.  Heredos,  no  !  and  yes  !  in  England . .iii. 

Dec.  30.  Church  Infants  (Ch.  St.)  Prayer  restricted . iii. 


Dec.  30.  Newark,  N.  J.  (Epis.)  On  Dec.  25,  the  R.  E.  C.  was  organized  with 
James  D.  Orton  and  W.  A.  Hammer,  Wardens,  and  R.  Gray,  Jr.,  J.  H.  Joliuson,  S. 
Lord,  Jr.,  L.  A.  Osborn,  P.  G.  Botticlier,  James  Hodge,  Geo.  C.  Miller,  Vestry¬ 
men. 

Dec.  30.  Kev.  W.  M.  Postleth  waite  (Epis.)  has  accepted  the  position  of  as¬ 
sociate  rector  of  Christ  Church  (Bishop  Cheney’s),  Chicago. 

Dec.  30.  Sussex,  N.  B.  (Epis.)  Rev.  John  Todd,  M.A.,  arrived  on  Sept.  24,  to 
take  charge  of  the  R.  E.  C.  He  says  :  “  The  whole  parish  was  under  Rev.  Canon 
Medley,  son  of  the  Bishop.  .  .  .  High.  .  .  .  unexceptionable  in  his  character  as  a  gen¬ 
tleman,  and  a  perfect  exponent  of  the  ‘  suaviter  in  modo'  .  .  .  Ritualism  made  the 
first  serious  difference.  ...  A  vestry  meeting  on  Easter  Monday,  1873,  at  which  the 
people  were  kept  from  morning  until  about  midnight  without  food  or  intermission 
.  .  .  made  the  breach  complete.  . .  .  that  the  parish  might  be  divided.  ...  an  act 
was  passed.  .  .  .  They  were  still  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ‘  Bishop  of  Frederic¬ 
ton  ’  .  .  .  Rather  than  have  another  clergyman  of  the  High  Church  school,  they  de¬ 
termined  to  have  none  at  all  .  .  .  .  The  ‘  Reformed  Church  ’  sprang  into  being  .... 
the  Senior  Warden  exclaimed  ‘  Here  is  our  salvation  ’  .  .  .  .  The  Wardens,  Vestry¬ 
men,  and  congregation,  with  not  a  single  exception,  joined  the  Reformed  Church, 
and,  in  fact,  we  are  now  working  with  the  officers  of  St.  Mark’s  parish  as  they 
previously  existed.  ...  I  supply  besides  Sussex,  eleven  other  places.  ...  At  Upham 
.  .  .  .  Rev.  Mr.  Hanford.  .  .  .  told  his  people  that  ‘  if  they  joined  us  they  should  have 
no  rites  of  burial’  ....  Our  cause  loses  nothing  by  opposition,”  etc. 

Dec.  30.  Baltimore,  Md.  (Epis.)  Bishop  Cummins  inaugurated  the  service  of 
the  R.  E.  C.  on  Dec.  27,  at  Lehman’s  Hall,  North  Howard  Street. 

Dec.  31.  Toronto  Parties  ( Toronto  Globe.) . iii. 

Jan.  6,  1875.  Philadelphia  (Epis.)  The  First  R.  E.  C.  had  a  children’s  festival, 
at  which  Thomas  Moore,  Esq.,  Senior  Warden,  presented  a  copy  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  to  each  of  the  155  children  of  the  Sunday-school.  Also  the  Sunday-school 
Association  presented  each  child  with  a  handsome  volume.  Addresses  by  Rev. 
Walter  Windeyer  (rector),  and  Rev.  Dr.  Stewart. 

Also  the  Second  R.  E.  C.  had  religious  exercises  on  Dec.  31,  and  books  and  other 
presents  distributed.  The  Sunday-school  is  one  month  old,  and  has  70  names  on 
its  roll.  The  infant  class,  35  ;  the  Bible  class,  1G.  The  men’s  Bible  class  gives 
promise  of  great  usefulness. 

Jan.  6.  Newark  (Epis.)  Sunday-school,  two  Sundays  old,  has  112  scholars  and 
2G  teachers.  The  congregation,  about  150.  A  lady  has  volunteered  to  supply  the 
school  for  a  year  with  all  the  books  necessary.  We  have  four  Bible  classes. 

Jan.  6.  Baltimore,  Md.  (Epis.)  On  Jan.  3,  Bishop  Cummins  delivered  a  lec- 


CHAPTER  I. 


25 


January  6,  1875. 

ture  upon  tlie  “  Points  of  difference  between  tbe  P.  E.  C.  and  tbe  R.  E.  C.”  Then 
follows  a  condensation  of  tlie  address. 

Jan.  6.  Wheeling1,  Va.  (Epis.)  Rev.  J.  H.  McMechen  is  forming  a  congrega¬ 
tion  of  the  R.  E.  C. 

Jan.  6.  Moncton,  N.  B.  (Epis.)  Rev.  J.  E.  Brown,  the  rector,  in  his  remarks 
at  the  late  communion,  said :  “  I  am  no  priest,  that  is  no  altar,  these  elements  are 
no  sacrifice,”  was  well  understood  and  appreciated  by  all  present. 

Jan.  6.  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson  (Epis.)  of  Summerville,  S.  C.,  has  resigned  the 


ministry  of  the  P.  E.  C. 

f 

Jan.  7.  Pacific  Churchman — post  prandial  ! . ii. 

Jan.  7.  Parties  violent  (Ch.  Jo.) . iii. 

Jan.  8.  Toronto  Parties . iii. 


Jan.  13.  Chicago  (Epis.)  A  third  parish  of  the  R.  E.  C.  has  been  organized, 
composed  principally  of  Church  of  England  people.  A  large  lot  has  been  donated. 
Christ  Church  gives  a  building,  which  will  be  removed  and  re-furnished.  “We 
are  informed  that  a  fourth  will  shortly  be  started  .  .  .  whose  moral  and  pecuniary 
support  is  already  secured .  ” 

Jan.  13.  Central  City,  Col.  (Epis.)  Rev.  James  C.  Pratt  has  withdrawn  from 
the  P.  E.  C.  and  joined  the  R.  E.  C.  A  Reformed  Church  will  immediately  be  or¬ 


ganized. 

Jan.  13.  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill  (Epis.)  Lecture  on  differences . ii. 

Jan.  13.  “  Schism,”  by  Dean  Cridge . ii. 

Jan.  13.  Independent.Church.es,  by  P.  E.  C. . iii. 

Jan.  14  and  16.  Toronto  parties . iii. 


Jan.  18.  Toronto  ( Toronto  Globe),  Christ  Church  is  the  name  of  the  church 
now  used  by  the  R.  E.  C.  .  .  .  Last  evening  services  were  conducted  by  Rev.  J.  Green¬ 


field. 

Jan.  27.  Laymen  in  England  who  want  Ritualism  (Ch.  St.) . iii. 

Jan.  27.  Isolation . iii. 


Jan.  27.  Toronto  parties  (Epis.)  are  given  more  at  length  on  some  points. 

Jan.  27.  Gloversville,  N.  Y.  (Epis.)  Dec.  17,  Bishop  Cummins  addressed  about 
1,000  people  in  the  Baptist  Church  for  about  an  hour  .  .  .  .  “  Three  gentlemen  en¬ 
deavored  to  purchase  Trinity  Episcopal  Church,  to  hand  it  over  on  easy  terms  to 
the  ‘  Reformed  Episcopal  Society.’  In  this  they  were  not  successful,  the  vestry 
and  congregation  preferring  to  make  efforts  to  revive  and  sustain  their  own 
church.”  .  .  .  Population  9,000,  with  5  substantial  church  buildings.  Methodist 
membership  950,  and  Sabbath-schools  1,000. 

Jan.  27.  Victoria,  B.  C.— Angela  College . ii. 

Jan.  27.  Victoria,  B.  C.  (Epis.)  “  We  have  a  site  given  to  us  for  our  proposed 
new  church  (by  Sir  James  Douglas,  our  first  and  best  Governor),  valued  at  $2,500, 
and  he  has  given  $1,000.  Many  others  have  given  largely  in  proportion  to  their 
means.  At  a  recent  meeting  ...  we  obtained  $3,100,  and  hope  to  obtain  $5,000 
shortly,  when  we  shall  commence  building.  .  .  .  The  funeral  of  ex-Mayor  Lewis  .  .  . 
was  the  largest  that  has  ever  taken  place  in  Victoria  .  .  .  The  impressive  burial  ser¬ 
vice  of  the  R.  E.  C.  was  read  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cridge.” — British  Colonist,  Dec.  30, 1874. 

Jan.  27.  Rev.  James  C.  Pratt  (Epis.)  Minister  in  charge  of  Trinity  Church, 
Boulder,  Colorado,  has  withdrawn  from  the  P.  E.  C.  to  unite  with  the  R.  E.  O. 


CHAPTER  I. 


26 


January  30,  1875. 

Jan  30.  Hon.  S.  L.  Woodford  at  Brooklyn . ii. 

Feb.  2.  Ottawa  ( Toronto  Globe).  “The  new  R.  E.  C.  is  almost  completed. 
Bishop  Cheney  has  promised  to  officiate  at  its  consecration.” 

Feb.  3.  Germantown,  Pa.  (Epis.)  Call  to  organize  a  R.  E.  C.  “An  intro¬ 
ductory  address  will  be  delivered  by  Rev.  Dr.  Nicholson,  of  the  Second  R.  E.  C.  of 
Philadelphia.” 

Feb.  3.  Chicago  (Epis.)  Four  R.  E.  C.  in  Chicago  have  regular  services  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  notices  of  service.” 

Feb.  3.  Littleton,  Col.  (Epis.)  Rev.  J.  T.  McFadden,  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  says, 
“  Everything. ..  .satisfactory.  We  have  a  fine  Sunday-school. ..  .congregation 
rapidly  increasing. . .  .Prayer  meetings  well  attended. . .  .Missions. . .  .near  the 

Platte  Canyon _ and  at  the  mouth  of  Bear  Creek  are  growing  steadily _ A 

gentleman  in  Boston  sent  us - a  Parish  Library.  A  lady  in  New  York...  a 


handsome  communion  set.” 

Feb.  3.  Protestant  Pope . iii. 

Feb.  4.  Illinois — General  Theological  Seminary . iii. 

Feb.  5.  De  Koven,  Bishop . iii. 

Feb.  6.  Gen.  Con.  censured  for  rejecting  Seymour . iii. 

Feb.  6.  Kev.  L.  Coleman  refuses  to  be  Bishop  of  N.  Wisconsin . iii. 

Feb.  8.  Jaggar  and  De  Koven,  by  Dr.  Hopkins . iii. 

Feb.  9.  Church  Growth  Decreasing,  by  H.  M.  Thompson . iii. 


Feb.  10.  De  Koven,  Bishop : — Jaggar’s  sympathy  for  Cheney  in  1871 — 
Ritualism— Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson— Log  Rolling — Church  Growth— Canada  parties. 

iii. 


Feb.  10.  Kev.  W.  H.  Johnson — Bishop  Yail . ii. 

Feb.  10.  Kev.  J.  Howard  Smith,  D.  D.  (Epis.)  rector  of  St.  John’s  Church, 
Knoxville,  Tenn.,  has  ....  withdrawn  from  the  ministry  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  and 
has  accepted  the  rectorship  of  the  R.  E.  C.  lately  organized  in  Newark,  N.  J.  He 
will  enter  upon  his  duties  ....  on  Sunday,  14th  inst.” 

Feb.  10.  Germantown  (Epis.)  The  Third  R.  E.  C.  of  Philadelphia  was 
inaugurated  Feb.  9.  Address  delivered  by  Dr.  Nicholson  of  the  Second  R.  E.  C. 

Feb.  10.  Baltimore  (Epis.)  Baltimore  Gazette  says,  “  Bishop  Cummins  and 
some  twenty  gentleman  met  at  Lehman’s  Hall,  enrolled  their  names  as  members, 
appointed  a  Committee  on  Organization  to  report  on  Tuesday  night.  A  Ladies’ 
Missionary  Aid  Society  meets  once  a  week.  Communion  to  about  sixty  ;  the  ser¬ 
vice  presented  by  two  young  ladies  ;  propose  to  call  a  rector.” 

Feb.  11.  De  Koven  Bishop. — “Why?” 

Feb.  11.  W.  H.  Johnson  returns  to  P.  E.  C.  (iii,  Feb.  ll  and  25  ;  ii.  Feb.  10). 

Feb.  13.  De  Koven.  Parties  organizing . iii. 

Feb.  15.  De  Koven.  Parties  more  violent.  Also  Memorial . iii. 

Feb.  17.  Church  of  England,  by  John  Bright . iii. 

Feb.  17.  Kev.  J.  Howard  Smith  (Epis.)  “  S.”  says,  “The  Knoxville  Chronicle 
of  a  late  date,  says  the  announcement  of  the  resignation  of  Dr.  J.  Howard  Smith, 
the  rector  of  the  new  R.  E.  C.  in  this  city  [Newark,  N.  J.],  and  the  reasons  therefor, 
was  the  senstion  of  the  day.  The  tenor  of  public  comment  was  sympathy  with 
the  rector,  and  a  general  recognition  of  the  past,  that  he  had  been  of  great  use¬ 
fulness  in  the  religious  work  of  the  city.”  The  following  is  a  copy  of  his  letter 


CHAPTER  I. 


27 

February  17,  1875.  ' 

of  resignation:  “  St.  John’s  Rectory,  Feb.  3,  1875. — To  tlie  Wardens  and  Vestrymen 
of  St  John’s  Church,  Knoxville.”  Then  follow  his  reasons  for  which  see  (iii, Feb. 
17,  Low  Church),  then  the  conclusion  thus : 

“  In  this  Church,  there  is  the  same  historic  ministry  in  three  orders,  the  same 
sublime  liturgy,  and  the  same  general  system  of  government  as  in  the  P.  E.  C. 
But  the  source  of  errors  and  strifes  that  have  vexed  the  Church  in  the  ages  past 
and  of  hierarchical  oppression,  have  been  eliminated.  If  there  can  be  a  Churoh 
with  such  a  happy  combination  of  the  prescribed  and  the  free,  of  liberty  and  law, 
of  truth  and  charity,  of  the  primitive  and  the  modern,  of  beautiful  order  in  itself 
and  large  catholic  toleration  towards  other  forms  of  Church  government,  as  to 
gather  to  itself  the  affection,  and  gradually  the  adherence,  of  Evangelical  Protes- 
tanism,  it  is  surely  to  be  found  in  the  R.  E.  C. 

“  It  gives  me  pleasure  to  feel  that  Heave  St.  John’s  Church  united  and  prosper¬ 
ous,  and  that  a  spiritual  bond  exists  between  the  retiring  pastor  and  many  of  the 
people,  that  neither  the  separation  of  life  nor  the  deeper  event  of  death  can  dis¬ 
solve.  Praying  God’s  choicest  blessings  upon  you,  gentlemen,  and  upon  the  flock 
you  must  for  the  time  represent,  I  am  yours  respectfully  and  affectionately ,J. 
Howard  Smith,  Rector  of  St.  John’s  Church.”  The  following  is  a  copy  :  “  St. 
John’s  church,  Feb.  3,  1875  : — At  a  meeting  of  the  Vestry  this  day  held, 
the  following  (among  other  proceedings)  were  adopted :  Resolved,  That 
we  have  heard  with  deep  and  unfeigned  regret,  of  the  determination  of  our 
esteemed  and  beloved  rector,  to  resign  the  pastoral  charge  of  this  church  ;  that  we 
honor  his  sincerity,  his  conscienciousness,  and  his  zeal  in  advancing,  by  every  good 
word  and  work,  the  kingdom  of  Christ  ;  and  we  humbly  hope  that  wherever  his 
lot  is  hereafter  cast,  in  the  providence  of  God,  the  blessing  of  the  Lord  may  attend 
him  in  all  his  labors,  and  crown  them  with  abundant  success.  Resolved ,  That  a 
committee  of  three  be  appointed  to  communicate  the  preceding  resolution  to  Dr. 
Howard  Smith,  and  to  express  to  him  more  fully  our  friendly  sympathies  and 
our  best  wishes  for  his  future  usefulness  and  welfare.  A  true  copy. — Wm.  M.  Bax¬ 
ter,  Secretary.” . iii. 

Feb.  17.  Newark,  N.  J.  (Epis.)  The  above  continues.  “Dr.  Howard  Smith 
arrived  in  Newark,  on  llth.  He  officiated  on  Sunday  for  the  first  time  .... 
Large  congregations.  .  .  .  Parish  ....  now  has  a  membership  of  200  .... 
The  Sunday-school  is  in  a  prosperous  condition,  with  a  large  membership,  a  good 
library,  well  trained  officers  and  teachers.  ...  We  shall  have  ....  a  prayer- 
meeting  on  Thursday  evening,  and  a  short  service  with  lecture  on  Tuesday  even¬ 
ing.”  (i,  Dec.  7,  23  24,  30,  Jan.  6,  Feb.  10,  and  iii,  Feb.  17,  Low  Church.) 

Feb.  17.  Victoria,  B.  C.  (Epis.)  The  British  Colonist,  Jan.  27,  1875,  says  : 
«  The  financial  report  showed  the  building  fund.  .  .  $5,250,  to  which  is  added  $800 
total,  $6,050.  .  .  An  educational  institution.  .  .  of  the  R.  E.  C.  .  .  was  com. 
menced  Jan.  20  .  .  .  Sunday-school.  .  .  242  children  sat  down  to  tea .  .  .  presents 
.  .  .  music  .  .  .  short  address  ...  special  prizes.” 

Feb.  17.  Moncton,  N.  B.  (Epis.)  “Z”  says :  The  first  anniversary  was  held 
Jan.  12,  presided  over  by  the  rector,  Rev.  J.  Eastburn  Brown.  Prayer  by  Rev.  Mr. 
Todd  [rector  at  Sussex]  ;  Declaration  of  Principles  read  by  Mr.  Carvell  [Superin¬ 
tendent  of  the  Intercolonial  Railway]  ;  Rev.  W.  V.  Felt  well  [rector  at  St.  Johns} 
addressed  the  meeting.  Rev.  J.  Todd  recounted  the  extent  and  success  ...  in 


28 


CHAPTER  I. 


February  17,  1875. 

Sussex  and  surroundings.  Mr.  Taylor,  in  substance,  said,  that  Rev.  Mr.  Boyer  be¬ 
coming  paralytic,  Rev.  W.  Walker  was  procured  temporarily.  His  ritualistic  prac¬ 
tices,  as  described,  caused  a  meeting  of  the  parishioners  in  the  spring  of  1873,  and 
17  out  of  22  heads  of  families  protested  (all  present).  One  of  the  wardens,  without 
authority,  procured  from  the  Bishop  letters  of  induction  for  Mr.  Walker,  and  he 
claimed  the  right  to  remain.  The  Bishop  would  not  listen  to  the  committee  sent  to 
Fredericton.  He  went  to  law.  The  congregation  determined  to  leave,  and  fitted 
up  the  present  building,  and  sent  for  Mr.  Killikelly,  of  Cambridge,  Mass.  The 
Bishop  threatened,  and  he  left.  .  “  We  were  almost  ready  to  give  up  in  despair.  We 
did  not  know  that  the  Hand  which  moves  the  universe  was  working  for  us  in  a 
quarter  where  we  least  expected  help.  .  .  It  pleased  the  Spirit  of  Truth  to  move 
Bishop  Cummins  ...  We  wrote  to  him,  desiring  him  to  send  us  a  minister.  To 
this  we  received  a  prompt  and  cheering  reply  ;  in  a  short  time  he  sent  to  us  the  Rev. 
W.  V.  Felt  well.  All  hearts  now  rejoiced,  for  not  only  did  Mr.  Feltwell  meet,  and 
more  than  meet,  our  hopes  and  aspirations,  but  we  soon  found  that  ours  was  no  iso¬ 
lated  case.  .  .  In  a  little  while  Sussex  asked  for  help.  It  was  given  ;  a  church  was 
organized,  and  soon  a  minister  [Rev.  John  Todd]  was  found  to  take  charge  of  that 
extensive  field  of  labor.  Then  came  the  cry  from  St.  Johns,  to  which  we  also  re¬ 
sponded,  Mr.  Feltwell  going  to  their  help,  and  ultimately  to  the  permanent  over¬ 
sight  and  care.  .  .  When  we  broke  off  our  connection  with  the  See  of  Fredericton, 
we  numbered  17  heads  of  families  ;  to-day  we  count  on  our  church  list  over  50  ;  be¬ 
sides  we  have  many  warm  and  hearty  friends  and  sympathizers.  .  .  Rev.  J.  East- 
burn  Brown.  .  .  handled  the  reform  movement  in  its  broader  and  more  compre¬ 
hensive  aspect .  .  .  The  rectors  and  delegates  from  other  parishes  arranged  for 
tri  monthly  conventions.” 

[Now  I  will  tell  our  friends  in  New  Brunswick  something  that  they  do  not 
know.  After  the  above  call  from  Moncton  came  to  Bishop  Cummins,  I  was  present 
when  the  Bishop  said  to  Mr.  Feltwell :  “  They  want  a  minister  at  Moncton,  N.  B. 
What  do  you  say  about  going  there  ?”  He  answered  immediately,  “  Anywhere  that 
you  have  a  mind  to  send  me.  I’ll  go  to  Africa  if  you  say  so.’’  “  Then  go  to  Monc¬ 

ton.”  “  I’ll  go.”  The  matter  was  settled  in  less  than  five  minutes.] 

Feb.  17.  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill  (Epis.)  delivered  the  third  Fraternity  Lecture  in  St. 
Paul,  Minnesota,  on  Feb.  4, 1875.  His  predecessors  were  Bishop  Whipple,  of  the 
P.  E.  C.,  and  Rev.  Mr.  Breed,  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  In  this  lecture  he  takes 
a  historic  view  of  the.Cliurch  of  Christ,  and  remarks  :  “  The  R.  E.  C.  is  believed  to 
express  more  clearly  than  any  other,  the  principles  of  those  who  in  1552  revived 
primitive  Christianity.” 

Feb.  17.  Rev.  Win..  Bowers  (Epis.),  late  assistant  minister  of  St.  Luke’s 
Church,  Philadelphia,  has  resigned  that  position,  has  withdrawn  from  the  ministry 


of  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  has  joined  the  ministry  of  the  R.  E.  C. 

Feb.  18.  Prof.  Seymour,  “  fit  for  inside,  but  not  outside  ” . iii. 

Feb.  18.  Log  Rolling  by  Independent . r . iii. 

Feb.  18.  Church  of  the  Prayer  Book . . iii. 

Feb.  18.  Bishop  De  Koven.  Bribery . iii. 

Feb.  18.  Bishop  De  Koven.  Let  Illinois  have  him . iii. 

Feb.  18.  Church  Decreasing . iii. 

Feb.  20.  Clergy  Decreasing  relatively . iii. 


CHAPTER  I. 


29 


February  20,  1875. 

Feb.  20.  Church  Growth  decreasing . . . iii. 

Feb.  24.  Parties  in  IHinois,  by  Louis  Peck  (Epis.) . . . .  .iii. 

Feb.  24.  Low.  Rev.  J.  H.  Mac  El’Rey’s  reasons  for  withdrawing . iii. 


Feb.  24.  Germantown  P.  E.  C.  (Epis.)  On  Feb.  17  addresses  were  delivered 
by  Rev.  C.  H.  Tucker  and  Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson.  This  Third  R.  E.  C.  in  Phila¬ 
delphia  is  called  Emmanuel  R.  E.  C.  Its  vestry  consists  of  Messrs.  E.  Varian,  R. 
Lord  Lee,  Dr.  Samuel  Asliurst,  Louis  E.  Ivinsler,  M.  Laird  Simons,  Richard  Wells. 
Rev.  G.  Albert  Redles,  late  of  Grace  P.  E.  C.,  Mount  Airy,  has  accepted  a  call  for 
the  7th  March.  Bishop  Cummins  will  preach  twice  for  them  on  Feb.  28.  To  be  a 
free  seat  church. 

Feb.  24.  Latest  accessions  (Ch.  St.)  to  the  R.  E.  C.  have  been  Rev.  J.  Howard 
Smith,  D.  D.,  late  rector  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  Knoxville,  Tenn.,  Rev.  Wm.  Bowen,  late 
assistant  ot  the  B.  E.  C.  of  St.  Luke,  Philadelphia. 

Pev.  G.  A.  Pedles,  late  rector  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  Mount  Airy,  Penn. 

Pev.  Benj.  Johnson,  late  rector  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  Macon,  Georgia. 

Pev.  E.  H.  Jenkins,  of  Pembroke,  Ontario,  Canada. 

Feb.  25.  Postal  Cards.  “Ass.”  “  Ex. -Rev.” . iii. 

Feb.  25.  Low.  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson’s  letter  (So.  Ch.) . (ii,  Feb.  10.)  iii. 

Feb.  27.  Pitualism  by  De  Koven  (Ch.) . iii. 

Feb.  27.  Bishop  of  Albany  on  De  Koven  (Ch.) . . (xii,  52-55.)  iii. 

Feb.  27.  Dr.  Hopkins  explains . (iii,  Feb.  8)  (iii,  March  12-17.)  iii. 

Feb.  27.  Growth  of  the  Church,  by  Dr.  Ewer . iii. 

Feb.  27.  Dr.  De  Koven  accepted  the  Bishopric  on  Feb.  15 . iii. 

March  1.  Brooklyn  (Trib.)  Dr.  Jaggar . . iii. 

March  3.  Low.  Rev.  G.  A.  Redles.  Exclusiveness  in  England . iii. 

March  3.  Illinois.  “  A  dreary  waste.” . iii. 

March  3.  Brooklyn.  (Ch.  St) . . . . .' . iii. 

March  3.  Peoria,  Ill.  (Epis.)  A.  G.  Tyng  says,  “  On  Monday  evening,  Feb. 
22,  Bishop  Cheney  visited  Christ  Church,  Peoria,  the  second  time  for  Confir¬ 
mation.  A  class  of  42  wTas  presented  by  the  rector,  Rev.  Jos.  D.  Wilson,  and  tho 
names  of  23  persons  were  read  by  him,  who  have  united  with  the  R.  E.  C.  by  let¬ 
ter  or  other  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  were  members  of  some  other  branch  of 
the  Church.  .  .  .  There  are  now  six  clergymen  of  the  R.  E.  C.  at  work  in  Illinois 
five  organized  parishes,  and  two  more  that  will  soon  be  organized,  and  we  look 
forward  to  the  organization  of  a  Synod  before  the  meeting  of  the  next  Council 


in  May.” 

March  4.  “Stop  Agitating”  says  (St.  Cross.)  . ii. 

March  10.  Jaggar’s  letter  to  Bishop  Stevens . iii. 

March  10.  Brooklyn  letter  by  (Epis.) . iii. 

March  10.  Church  of  England  and  Dissenters  . iii. 

March  11.  Votes  for  Jaggar.  “  Unreformed.  ” . iii. 

March  12.  Jaggar.  Facts  by  B.  Aycrigg . iii. 

March  13.  Dr.  Hopkins  on  Jaggar,  facts . iiL 

March  13.  Peformd  Episcopalians  blamed . iii. 

March  15.  Dr.  Hopkins  to  B.  Aycrigg.  “Thanks.” . iii. 


March  15.  Ottawa.  (Free  Press).  “The  new  Emmanuel  Church  of  which  a 
brief  description  wms  given  in  Saturday’s  Free  Press,  was  opened  yesterday.  .  .  . 


30 


CHAPTER  I. 


March.  15,  1875. 

Long  before  the  stipulated  time  almost  every  available  seat  was  occupied.  .  .  . 
The  thanks  of  the  choir  of  the  R.  E.  C.  are  certainly  due  to  the  members  of  others 
of  our  city  churches  for  the  efficient  aid  rendered  them.  Mr.  C.  E.  Clark,  organist. 
Services  by  the  pastor,  Rev.  Johnson  McCormac.  .  .  .  Bishop  Cheney  delivered  a 
.  .  .  .  discourse  [filling  two  and  one-half  columns].  Then — Missions  of  the  R.  E. 
C. ;  a  meeting  will  be  held  on  15th.  The  chair  will  be  taken  by  TIon.  Senator 
McDonald  of  Victoria,  B.  C.  Addresses  by  the  chairman,  Bishop  Cheney 
Rev.  J.  McCormac,  and  James  Johnson,  Esq.,  Commissioner  of  Customs. 

March.  15.  Toronto.  (Ottawa  Free  Press),  “  Bishop  Cheney  of  the  R.  E.  C. 
is  expected  to  arrive  in  the  city  to-morrow  (16th).  It  is  likely  he  will  deliver  a 


lecture.” 

March  15.  Dr.  Hopkins  to  B.  Aycrigg . iii. 

March  17.  B.  Aycrigg  to  Dr.  Hopkins,  more  facts . iii. 

March  17.  Low.  Rev.  Benjamin  Johnson,  of  Ga . iii. 

March  17.  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson,  of  S.  C.,  is  not  Rev.  B.  Johnson . iii. 


March  17.  Germantown  (Epis.)  First  regular  service  was  held  Feb.  28,  in 
Second  Presbyterian  Church,  pastor,  Rev.  G.  Albert  Redles.  Bishop  Cummins 
preached  in  the  morning,  and  delivered  a  lecture  on  the  R.  E.  C.  in  the  evening. 
He  was  assisted  by  Rev.  G.  A.  Redles  and  Rev.  Walter  Windeyer.  On  Monday 
following  the  Bishop  and  Dr.  Nicholson  examined  candidates  for  the  ministry. 

March  17.  Kensington  (Epis.)  Services  have  been  held  for  the  last  few  Sun¬ 
days,  and  various  ministers  have  conducted  them  and  have  preached.  A  Sunday- 
school  has  been  established  and  a  female  Bible  class.  On  Sunday  last  the  Rev.  J.  S. 
Malone,  late  of  Pittsburgh,  preached  both  morning  and  evening.  ...  At  the  vestry, 
meeting,  held  on  Tuesday  night,  an  invitation  was  extended  to  him  to  become  the 
minister.  .  .  .  The  call  he  had  determined  to  accept.  ...  It  is  intended  to  establish  a 
weekly  prayer  meeting,  and  to  foster  the  Sunday  -school. 

March  17.  Sympathy  for  Rev.  Dr.  Cheney  (Epis.)  B.  Aycrigg  writes  to  the 
Episcopalian,  dated  March  13,  1875  :  “  Until  last  evening,  I  supposed  the  circum¬ 
stances  attending  the  signature  of  Dr.  Jaggar  to  this  document  was  no  business  of 
mine.  During  yesterday  I  was  engaged  in  copying  the  original  documents  which 
Bishop  Cheney  sent  to  me  as  authentic  documents  belonging  to  the  History  of  the 
R.  E.  C.,  upon  which  I  am  engaged.  In  the  evening,  the  Churchman,  ante-dated 
March  13,  was  seen  to  contain  a  paper  by  Dr.  Hopkins  on  the  subject  of  the  date  of 
signature.  I  alone  happened  at  the  time  to  have  documentary  evidence,  and  con¬ 
sidering  it  my  duty  to  appear  as  a  witness,  I  left,  this  morning,  with  the  editors  of 
the  Evening  Post  and  of  the  Tribune,  the  following — ‘  All  the  original  documents  on 
this  subject  are  in  my  possession.  The  name  of  Dr.  Jaggar  is  not  one  of  the 
twelve  printed  names  on  the  circular,  but  is  in  manuscript  on  two  of  them.  And 
each  circular  has  the  printed  note,  “  On  the  13tli  May  all  the  signatures  will  be  sent 
to  Mr.  Cheney.”  This  shows  that  the  signatures  were  before  June  2,  the  date  of 
deposition  as  stated  by  Dr.  Hopkins  in  the  Churchman,  dated  May  13,  1875. — B. 
Aycrigg,  Passaic,  N.  J.,  March  12,  1875.’  Also  the  following  telegram — ‘  To  Dr. 
John  H.  Hopkins,  Plattsburgh,  N.  Y. :  Jaggar’s  manuscript  signature  is  on  printed 
circulars  required  May  13  for  Cheney.  See  Post,  Tribune.'  In  the  copy  left  with 
the  Tribune,  the  word  presumptively  was  interlined  after  ‘This  shows  ’  (presump¬ 
tively).  B.  A.” 


CHAPTER  I. 


31 


March  17,  1875. 

March  17.  Rev.  Joseph  S.  Malone  (Epis.)  lias  resigned  East  Liberty  [Pitts¬ 
burgh]  and  accepted  Emmanuel  R.  E.  C.,  Pliila.  (Kensington). 

March  17.  Philadelphia  (Epis.)  Rev.  Dr.  Nicholson,  rector  of  the  Second  R. 
E.  C.,  at  N.  W.  corner  of  18th  and  Chestnut  streets,  has  Tuesday  afternoon  services 
during  Lent.  Regular  Saturday  evening  prayer-meeting. 

March  17.  Rev.  Ch.  H.  Tucker  (Epis.)  will  preach  in  Oxford  Hall,  Oxford 
street  west  of  19th  street,  next  Sunday,  with  the  view  of  establishing  a  R.  E.  C.  in 


the  N.  W.  section  of  Philadelphia. 

March  17.  Ireland  (Ch.  St.)  Episcopal  liberality .  . iii. 

March  17-  Church  of  England  (Ch.  St.)  compromise . iii. 

March  18.  Episcopal  Elections  (Trib.)  Editorial . iii. 

March  22.  Episcopal  Elections  (Trib.)  Dr.  Ewer . „ . iii. 


March  24.  Ottawa  (Epis.)  see  March  15,  Ottawa.  Senator  McDonald  said 
that  the  R.  E.  C.  in  Victoria  had  left  to  the  Bishop  “  only  a  congregation  of  some 
fifteen  souls.  The  blow  was  a  severe  one  to  the  Ritualists.” 

March  24.  St.  Johns,  N.  B.  (Epis.)  “  Our  rector  .  .  .  not  only  preaches  in  Bap¬ 
tist  and  Presbyterian  pulpits,  but  invites  them  to  take  his.  ...A  Presbyterian 
brother  stood  alongside  of  him,  distributing  the  bread  and  wine  to  us  at  com¬ 
munions.” 

March  24.  Oxford  Hall,  Phila.  (Epis.)  Last  Sunday  ...  a  Sunday-school  or¬ 
ganized,  having  Rev.  Mr.  Tucker  for  superintendent,  Mr.  W.  C.  Johnson,  assistant, 
Mr.  J.  W.  Frazer,  Secretary.  Dr.  Shively  teaches  a  male  Bible  class,  and  ten 
members  of  the  congregation  volunteered  to  form  and  instruct  classes. 

March  24.  Kensington  (Epis.)  A  male  Bible  class  (adults)  is  taught  by  Rev. 
Mr.  Malone,  membership  15.  Female  Bible  class  is  taught  by  Miss  Ware.  Week¬ 
ly  prayer-meeting  on  Wednesday  from  house  to  house.  Lord’s  Supper  on  28th. 

March.  24.  Dr.  Jaggar  to  Bishop  Stevens  (Ch.  St.) . iii.  Mar.  10. 

March  24.  Church  of  England  (Ch.  St.)  A  proposed  Act  of  Parliament  allows 
a  Bishop  to  authorize  a  second  parish,  if  the  population  exceed  1,600,  so  that  there 
may  be  both  High  and  Low. 

March  24.  Statistics  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (Ch.  St.)  50  Bishops,  5  Bishops  elect,  3,035 
priests  and  deacons,  3,140  clergymen,  2,750  parishes,  273,092  communicants,  23,007 
school-teachers,  225,733  Sunday  scholars,  contributions  during  the  year  $6,851,983. 


March  29.  Low?  (Times).  Bequest . iii. 

March  30.  Ritualism  in  England  (Toronto  Globe) . iii. 


March  30.  Toronto  (Globe)  Christ  R.  E.  C.  “  The  annual  meeting  of  this 
church  was  held  last  evening,  Rev.  J.  G.  Manly  in  the  chair.  Messrs.  H.  W. 
Booth  and  Robert  Stevens  were  elected  Church  Wardens,  and  Messrs.  G.  L.  Beard- 
more,  J.  C.  Morgan,  G.  T.  B.  Gurnett,  N.  McGrath,  W.  S.  Noad,  John  A.  McMahon, 
E.  F.  Clark  as  vestrymen.  His  Honor  Judge  Hughes  and  Mr.  G.  L.  Beardmore 
were  elected  delegates  to  the  General  Council.  . .  .The  Rev.  Mr.  McGuire,  of  Wash¬ 


ington,  D.  C.,  will  officiate  next  Sunday.” 

March  31.  Dr.  Ewer  on  Episcopal  Elections  (Epis.) . iii.  March  22,  Ep.  El. 

March  31.  Ritualism  in  England  (Ch.  St.). . iii.  March  30. 

April  1.  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson  (So.  Ch.) . iii. 

April  1.  Episcopal  Register,  of  Phil.  “Laughter.” . ii. 

April  1.  See  Apendices,  Chapter  XX. 


CHAPTER  II. 


REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


Press  Reports  of  Action  against ,  and  of  Opinions  expressed ,  for  and 
against  the  R.  E.  C.,  Indexed  in  Chapter  I.,  and  Analyzed  in  Chapters 
IV.  to  XV. ,  as  indicated  at  the  conclusion  of  each  extract.  For  the  names 
and  characteristics  of  the  Newspapers  quoted ,  and  for  the  mode  of  quoting , 
and  for  R.  E.  C.,  and  P.  E.  C.,  Ch.  Eng.,  Pan- Anglican,  see  Preface. 

♦ 

November  15,  1873. 

Nov.  15,  1873.  Evening’  Post  says:  “Bishop  Cummins’  withdrawal  (Nov. 
10),  it  is  thought,  will  create  some  complications  between  the  two  phases  of  the¬ 
ology  in  the  Kentucky  Episcopal  Church.” . vii.  1. 

Nov.  15.  Times  says:  “  This  resignation  has  been  brought  about  by  a  series 
of  severe  criticisms  on  the  part  of  his  High  Church  brethren  ....  It  seems  that  the 
head  and  front  of  the  offending  of  Bishop  Cummins  was  his  participation  in  a  Com¬ 
munion  service  in  Dr.  Hall’s  Church.” . v.  4;  vii.  1. 

Nov.  15.  Tribune  says  :  “  The  controversy  on  the  Joint  Communion  has  led, 
as  the  following  letter  shows,  to  some  important  and  unexpected  results.  Bishop 
Cummins,  of  Kentucky,  has  resigned  his  office,  in  order  to  devote  himself  to  a  re¬ 
form  in  the  Church,  which  will  promote,  as  he  believes,  the  fraternal  union  of 
Christians  of  various  denominations,  and  accomplish  among  Episcopalians  a  result 
similar  to  that  at  which  Bishop  Keinkius  and  his  associates  are  aiming  in  the 
Church  of  Rome.”  The  Tribune  also  gives  the  ecclesiastical  record  of  Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins,  as  stated  by  Bishop  Coxe,  of  Western  New  York . v.  4;  vii.  1;  xiii.  15. 

Nov.  19.  Bishop  Cummins  (Ch.  St.)  The  editor  says  :  “He  has  always  been 
faithful  and  laborious  in  the  various  positions  which  he  has  occupied  in  the  Church, 
has  enjoyed  unusual  popularity  as  a  preacher,  and  has  received  from  the  Church 
the  highest  office  in  her  gift.  His  ability,  energy,  and  earnestness  render  his  seces¬ 
sion  a  great  loss  to  the  communion  which  he  leaves.  We  doubt  whether  it  will  be 
possible  for  him  to  find  elsewhere  more  kindly  appreciation  or  warmer  friends  than 
he  has  left  behind. .  .  .  The  reasons  ....  are.  .  .  .  He  is  hopeless  of  any  deliverance 
of  the  Church  from  sacerdotalism  by  legislative  action  ....  He  cannot  act  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  his  own  principles  without  alienating  his  brethren.  .  .  .  But  ....  the 
fundamental  idea  of  our  Church  is  the  inclusion  within  her  fold  of  wide  diversities 
of  opinion.  The  fundamental  idea  of  sectarianism  is  ecclesiastical  separation  from 
everything  that  we  regard  as  erroneous.  .  .  .  All  that  Bishop  Cummins  takes  excep¬ 
tion  to  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  idea  of  the  catholicity  of  the  Church  .... 
Bishop  Cummins  leaves  voluntarily  a  communion  where  there  is  the  smallest  pos¬ 
sible  fraction  [?]  holding  views  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  which  even  he  would  regard 
as  being  as  objectionable  as  those  of  Luther  and  the  Old  Catholics.  .  .  .  lie  washed 

(32) 


CHAPTER  II. 


33 


November  19,  1873* 

to  compel  others  to  conform  to  his  views,  and  because  he  could  not  succeed  in  doing 
this,  has  abandoned  the  communion  of  the  Church.  .  .  .  Bishop  Cummins’.  .  .  . 
want  of  caution,  and  accuracy  ....  In  alluding  to  the  revision  ....  in  16S9,  Bishop 
Cummins  says  that  it  .  .  .  ,  exercised  great  influence  in  the  preparation  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  Prayer  Book  by  Bishop  White.  * .  .  Now,  it  ... .  was  not  made  public  until 
1854.  .  .  .  Bishop  Cummins  has  been  greatly  at  fault  in  dealing  very  severely  with 
those  who  do  not  belong  to  his  own  school  of  opinion.  ...  On  the  other  hand  .  .  .  * 
treated  with  marked  disrespect,  and  deeply  wounded  by  the  character  of  the  as> 
saults  made  upon  him. .  .  .  They  must  be  held  largely  accountable  for  the  injury 
which  the  Church  sustains  in  the  loss  of  so  able  and  excellent  a  man  (II.  Nov. 
26,  Cath.;  Dec.  24,  Ch.  St.;  Dec.  11,  Obs. ;  Dec.  17,  Meth.;  Dec.  31,  So.  Ch.;  Jan. 
21,  Eng.;  Jan.  21,  Cath.)  [A  note  to  the  Preface  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  178&*  sus¬ 
tains  the  assertion  made  by  Bishop  Cummins.] 

Nov.  19.  Bishops’  Meeting.  See  Nov.  26.  (Ch.  St.) . viii,  2. 

Nov.  26.  Southern  Churchman  (Epis.)  Objects  to  the  resignation  of  Bishop 
Cummins  in  a  kind  and  Christian  tone  . . . xiii,  10. 

Nov.  26.  Catholicus.  (Epis.)  Rev.  G.  W.  Ridgely,  an  aged  presbyter  of  the 
P.  E.  C.,  says  :  “  For  more  than  a  third  of  a  century,  the  Evangelical  party  have 
been  talking  of  doing  something.  .  .  .  This  is  the  first  attempt  at  decisive  action.” 

vii,  1  ;  notes  ii,  Nov.  19,  1873* 

Nov.  26.  HistoricalAccuracy  of  Bishop  Cummins  (Ch.  St.)  (see  Nov.  19.) 

Nov.  26.  Call  to  Organize  (Ch.  St.)  gives  the  first  public  notice  of  this  call 
(ix,  2),  and  says,  “Is  he  still  assistant  Bishop  of  Kentucky?  ....  Under  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  he  would  of  course  refrain  from  any  episcopal  acts  as  assistant  Bishop 
of  Kentucky.  But  besides  this,  we  think  that  he  is  under  very  solemn  obligations 
during  this  six  months,  to  refrain  from  episcopal  acts  altogether.”  (xiii,  10.)  [We 
all  thought  differently,  and  having  left  the  P.  E.  C.,  regarded  all  our  action  as 
entirely  independent  of  the  P.  E.  C.] 

Nov.  25.  Bishops’  Meeting  (Ch.  St.)  says  on  Nov.  19 . viii,  2. 

Nov.  27.  Drs.  Sullivan  and  Cheney  (Epis.)  “  The  Chicago  Evening  Journal 
of  Monday,  says  :  ‘  Unusually  large  congregations  were  present  on  yesterday  morn¬ 
ing,  in  both  Trinity  and  Christ  Churches,  where  it  was  expected  that  something 
especial  would  be  said  with  reference  to  the  recent  withdrawal  of  Bishop  Cummins 
from  the  Episcopal  Church,  the  Bishop  having  been  formerly  rector  of  Trinity, 
while,  as  has  long  been  known,  he  personally  sympathized  with  Dr.  Cheney  in  his 
Church  troubles  with  Bishop  Whiteliouse.  Dr.  Sullivan,  of  Trinity,  discoursed  at 
length  on  Bishop  Cummins’  action,  ....  that  he  ought  to  have  remained  in  the 
Church  to  aid  in  correcting  whatever  errors  he  may  have  fancied  had  crept  into  it, 
rather  than  sever  his  connection  therewith.  Dr.  Cheney  merely  alluded  in  brief 
terms  ....  thanking  God,  that  there  was  one  Protestant  Episcopal  Bishop  in  the 
United  States  who  had  the  courage  to  proclaim  the  truth.  It  was,  he  said,  a 
grand  and  good  and  hopeful  thing,  that  there  was  a  Bishop  who  preferred 
the  path  of  God’s  truth  to  the  walks  of  the  world’s  favor.”  (iii,  Nov.  27,  Low  ; 
xiii,  25). 

Nov.  29,  1873.  Bishops’  Meeting  (Post,)  has  an  account  of  the  meeting  of 
Bishops  Smith,  Potter,  Odenheimer,  and  Stevens  on  Nov.  29,  with  this  heading : 
“The  Case  of  Bishop  Cummins;  Important  Episcopal  Action.” . x,  1-14 


.CHAPTER  II. 


34 

November  30,  1873. 

Nov.  30.  Bishops’  Meeting-  (Times).  “  The  case  of  Bishop  Cummins.  Yes¬ 
terday  afternoon  a  meeting  of  certain  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Bishops  of  the 
dioceses  in  this  immediate  vicinity  was  held  in  the  vestry-room  of  Grace  Church,  to 
take  into  consideration  the  matter  of  the  withdrawal  of  Bishop  Cummins  from  the 
Episcopal  Church.  The  Bishops  participating  were  summoned  by  telegraph  as  the 
emergency  was  deemed  serious.  The  deliberations  of  the  meeting  were  conducted 
in  secresy,  but  it  is  understood  that  the  prelates  summoned  to  the  conference  by 
Bishop  Smith  of  Kentucky,  the  presiding  Bishop  by  right  of  seniority  of  office,  were 
Bishop  Potter  of  New  York,  Bishop  Littlejohn  of  Long  Island,  Bishop  Odenheimer 
of  New  Jersey,  and  Bishop  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania.  The  main  question  to  be 
brought  up  was  that  of  the  formal  deposition  of  Bishop  Cummins,  who,  until  such 
action  is  taken,  is  dejure  a  Bishop  still,  and  qualified  to  consecrate  other  Bishops. 
It  is  said  there  is  a  feeling  among  certain  of  the  Bishops  in  favor  of  deposing  Dr. 
Cummins  without  according  him  the  six  months  notice,  which  the  Canon  requires, 
trusting  that  the  House  of  Bishops  at  the  next  General  Convention  will  justify 
this  action.” . x,  1-14. 

Nov.  30.  The  Times.  Editorial.  .  .  .  “The  assistant  Bishop  of  Kentucky 
chose  to  sever  his  connection  with  the  Church,  because  his  participation  in  a  com¬ 
munion  service  in  Dr.  Hall’s  Presbyterian  Church,  in  this  city,  had  been  made  the 
subject  of  much  unfavorable  criticism  by  some  of  his  ecclesiastical  brethren.  .  .  . 
Even  Wesley  maintained  his  position  within  the  Church  of  England  till  the  very 
last.”  [They  permitted  it,  while  the  P.  E.  C.  does  not]  .  .  .  .  “  But  if  Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins  chose  to  follow  a  path  in  which  even  those  who  warmly  sympathized  with  his 
doctrinal  position  were  unable  to  follow  him,  that  will  not  justify  the  Bishops  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  deliberately  putting  themselves  in  the  wrong 
for  the  purpose  of  thwarting  the  schismatic  tendencies  of  their  erring  brother.  It 
is  said  that  a  special  meeting  of  six  Bishops  was  held  yesterday  in  this  city,  to 
discuss  the  advisability  of  immediately  deposing  Bishop  Cummins,  without  giving 
him  the  benefit  of  the  legal  formalities  required  in  such  a  case.  The  reason  for 
urging  such  precipitate  action  is  obvious  enough.  The  meeting  called  for  Tuesday 
next  is  intended  to  form  the  starting  point  for  a  new  Church.  Its  object  is  declared 
to  be  ‘  to  organize,’  etc.  [ix.].  .  .  .  The  laws  of  the  Church  gives  any  Bishop  who 
abandons  its  communion,  the  benefit  of  six  months  notice  before  deposition.  But 
meanwhile  Bishop  Cummins  may  organize  his  new  Church,  may  ordain  deacons 
and  presbyters,  and  perhaps  consecrate  other  Bishops,  and  thus  fully  equip  a  rival 
organization,  which  may  dispute  ecclesiastical  standing  with  the  P.  E.  C.  in  the 
United  States.  However  dreadful  the  Bishops  may  regard  such  a  contingency,  we 
suspect  they  have  no  choice  in  the  matter.  Bishop  Cummins  must  retain  de  jure 
his  Episcopal  rank  and  functions  for  six  months  longer,  and  all  the  informal  meet¬ 
ings  held,  or  extra  legal  proceedings  adopted  in  the  interim,  cannot  alter  the  past. 
But  for  the  perpetuity  of  Episcopal  function  outside  of  the  communion  from  which 
it  was  derived,  there  would  have  been  no  P.  E.  C.  at  all.  Whatever  inconven¬ 
ience  may  result  from  the  action  of  Bishop  Cummins,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  he 
can  be  prevented  from  organizing  his  new  Church  if  he  is  so  minded.”  .  .  .  Then 
follows  the  Canon  (viii,  3)  (x,  1-14.) 

Dec.  1.  Bishops’  Meeting  (Trib.)  “  A  meeting  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Bishops  of  six  neighboring  Dioceses  was  called  by  Bishop  Smith  of  Kentucky,  the 


CHAPTER  II. 


35 

December  1,  1873. 

presiding  Bishop,  to  consider  the  withdrawal  of  Bishop  Cummins  of  Kentucky, 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church.  This  meeting  was  held  in  the  vestry-room  of 
Grace  Church  [New  York]  Saturday  afternoon  [Nov.  29.]  Among  those  summoned 
to  attend  were  Bishop  Potter  of  New  York,  Bishop  Littlejohn  of  Long  Island, 
Bishop  Odenlieimer  of  New  Jersey,  and  Bishop  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania.  Bishop 
Potter  was  unable  to  attend  on  account  of  engrossing  duties.  These  prelates  had 
met  before  informally,  and  discussed  the  matter.  The  proceedings  of  Saturday’s 
session  are  kept  from  the  public,  but  those  best  competent  to  judge  declare  that  no 
definite  action  for  the  deposition  of  Bishop  Cummins  was,  or  could  have  been,  taken, 
as  the  Canon  law  prescribes  a  form  of  procedure,  under  which  the  deposition  can¬ 
not  be  consummated  under  six  months.  This  form  is  as  follows  [then  follows  the 
substance  of  the  Canon  quoted  in  viii.]. . .  .It  seems  probable  that  the  Bishops  mere¬ 
ly  agreed  that  Bishop  Cummins  should  be  given  notice  that  his  deposition  would 
be  carried  out  in  six  months.  The  first  step,  the  certifying  by  the  Diocesan  Com¬ 
mittee  to  the  presiding  Bishop  of  the  withdrawal  of  Bishop  Cummins  from  the  com¬ 
munion  of  the  church  has  already  been  taken  [see  viii.]  Some  Bishops  declare 
that  the  period  allowed  by  the  Canon  is  simply  a  liberal  provision  against  hasty 
and  ill-advised  action,  giving  a  chance  to  retract  a  step  once  taken,  and  only  for 
the  benefit  of  such  as  might  come  back  on  mature  reconsideration  ;  but  that,  in 
the  case  of  Bishop  Cummins,  the  secession  was  so  flagrant  and  emphatic,  that  it  is 
impossible  for  him  to  go  back,  and  that  he  should  be  deposed  straightway.  They 
affirm  that  the  presiding  Bishop,  with  those  whom  he  has  summoned,  should  im¬ 
mediately  declare  Bishop  Cummins  deposed,  looking  to  the  General  Convention 
which  is  to  meet  a  year  hence,  to  justify  their  going  outside  of  the  Canon.  Those 
who  advise  such  a  proceeding  assert  that  there,  is  no  question  the  step  would  be 
justified  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  that  the  Canon  should  contain  some  provision 
for  an  extreme  case  of  this  kind . viii.  2,  5  ;  x.  1-14. 

Dec.  1.  Telegram  (B.  A.)  Received  by  Bishop  Cummins  at  about  10  A.M.,  when 
I  was  present.  “  Louisville,  Dec.  1,  1873. — To  Rt.  Rev.  Geo.  D.  Cummins,  11  E. 
57th  St.,  New  York. — Charges  against  you  forwarded  from  here  to-day.”,  .x.  10-14. 

Dec.  1.  Bishop’s  Act  (Post).  “  Dr.  Cummins — Action  of  the  Presiding  Bishop 
of  the  P.  E.  C. — The  Rt.  Rev.  B.  B.  Smith,  D.D.,  has  issued  the  following  paper  : 
4  The  authorities  of  the  Church  assert  that  this  action  of  the  Church  has  no  refer¬ 
ence  to  Dr.  Cummins’  act  of  mixed  communion,  but  refers  solely  to  his  abandon¬ 
ment  of  the  Communion  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  his  publicly  avowed  pur¬ 
pose  to  organize  a  schism  in  the  same.’  ”  Then  follows . x.  1-14. 

Dec.  1.  Null  and  Void  Proclamation  (Post).  “  Notice  has  been  received  from 
the  Secretary  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky,  that  a  pre¬ 
sentment  for  the  trial  of  George  David  Cummins,  D.D.,  has  been  prepared  for  of¬ 
fences  three  and  five  of  section  one,  Canon  nine,  Title  two,  namely,  First :  for  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  the  General  Convention  ;  Second  :  for  breach 
of  his  ordination  vow.  Be  it  known,  therefore,  that  any  Episcopal  act  of  his  pending 
these  proceedings  will  be  null  and  void,  and  it  is  hoped  that  respect  for  law  and 
order,  on  the  part  of  all  members  of  this  church,  will  restrain  them  from  giving 
any  countenance  whatever  to  the  movement  in  which  Dr.  Cummins  is  engaged. — 
B.  B.  Smith,  Bishop  of  Kentucky,  Presiding  Bishop. — Hoboken,  Dec.  1,  1873.” 

x.  1-13. 


CHAPTER  II. 


36 

December  1,  1873. 

Dec.  1.  Card  of  Philadelphians.  (Times). 

“  Bishop  Cummins.” 

“  To  the  Editor  of  the  New  York  Times  : — 

“  The  enclosed  card  came  to  me  to-day  from  Philadelphia,  with  a  line  from  one 
of  its  signers,  requesting  its  insertion  in  one  or  more  of  the  daily  papers  in  New 
York,  in  order  that  the  clergy  and  laity  of  our  Church  in  this  city,  and  especially 
any  sympathizing  with  the  movement  of  Bishop  Cummins,  might  understand 
clearly  and  authoritatively  the  extent  of  the  Bishop’s  following  in  Philadelphia. 
The  list  will  at  once  be  recognized  as  embracing  the  leading  Low  Church  rectors  in 
that  city,  radical  as  well  as  conservative.  The  note  says,  ‘  The  list  could  be  en¬ 
larged  if  there  were  time.’ 

“  What  roots  this  new  Church  will  strike  in  this  the  strongest  Low  Church  city 
in  the  country,  the  circular  will  show  to  the  most  enthusiastic  revolutionist. 

“  (Signed.)  R.  Heber  Newton, 

“1 lector  of  the  Anthon  Memorial  Church. 

“A  CARD. 

“  The  undersigned  having  heard  with  profound  sorrow  of  the  movement  now 
making  by  Bishop  Cummins  for  the  organization  of  a  new  *  Church  on  the  basis  of 
the  Prayer  Book  of  1785,’  desire  to  say  that  they  have  no  sympathy  with  this  meas¬ 
ure,  and  that  it  does  not  represent  the  views  and  feelings  of  Evangelical  men. 

“  William  Suddards  .  .  .;  Benjamin  Watson  .  .  . ;  James  Pratt  .  .  . ;  Richard  N. 
Thomas  .  .  .;  Daniel  S.  Miller  .  .  . ;  Thomas  A.  Jaggar .  .  .;  Wilbur  F.  Paddock  .  .  .; 
John  B.  Faulkner  .  .  .;  Robert  A.  Edwards  .  .  .  ;  Richard  Newton  .  .  . ;  C.  George 
Currie  .  .  . ;  Wm.  H.  Munroe  .  .  .  ;  Snyder  B.  Simes  .  .  .  ;  Charles  L.  Fischer  .  .  . ; 
Charles  D.  Cooper  .  .  .;  William  Newton  .  .  .;  J.  Houston  Eccleston  .  .  .  ;  John  A. 
Childs.  .  .;  W.  W.  Spear  ;  with  their  respective  charges.”  This  card  had  been  pre¬ 
viously  printed  in  Philadelphia.  It  was  subsequently  printed  Dec.  3  (Trib.  and 
Epis.)  Dec.  4  (Obs.) . x.  15;  xiii.  19. 

Dec.  2.  Organization.  This  was  arrested  for  a  few  minutes,  to  find,  by  the 
raised  hand,  whether  those  who  voted  no !  by  the  voice  were  entitled  to  a  vote, 
when  no  hand  appeared,  and  those  near  the  voices  said  that  they  were  four  young 
men,  who  were  dressed  like  theological  students,  and  who  immediately  crouched  out 
of  sight.  I  saw  them  and  have  no  doubt  that  they  were  such. . .  .x.  12,  16  ;  xii.  56. 

Dec.  3.  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng,  Jr.  (Trib.),  says  that  Bishop  Cummins  had  a  right  to 
withdraw  from  the  F.  E.  C. 

Dec.  3.  Episcopalian  refers  to  Null  and  Void  of  Dec.  1,  and  says  that  the 
Bishops  acted  with  unbecoming  haste . . x.  1-13. 

Dec.  4.  Church  and  State  says :  “  The  Bishop,  with  these  seven  or  eight 
Presbyters,  and  the  laymen  associated  with  them,  are  men  of  unblemished  Chris¬ 
tian  character,  and  some  at  least  of  them  are  men  of  marked  ability.  We  may 
well  inquire  whereunto  this  is  likely  to  grow.’’ 

Dec.  4.  Church  Journal.  Editor  says,  “  The  Fallen  Bishop.”  “  Last  week  the 
following  letter  appeared  in  the  daily  papers  of  this  city :  Desiring  to  lay  before 
our  readers  a  full  history  of  the  unhappy  man’s  attempt  to  establish  (in  his  love  of 
Christianity  !)  a  new  sect,  we  reprint  it  as  a  part  of  his  wretched  effort  at  a  wretched 
sin— a  sin  against  which  he  has  prayed  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  The  errors  of 


CHAPTER  II. 


37 


December  4,  1873. 

the  letter  we  need  not  dwell  upon,  nor  point  out  even.  The  ‘  Proposed  Book  ’  was 

a  failure.  The  Church  would  not  accept  it _ To  us  schism  is  a  sin.  We  cannot 

speak  lightly  even  of  what  must  he  a  poor,  futile,  and  ridiculous  effort  on  the  part 
of  au  unbalanced  and  unlearned  man.  His  soul,  and  the  souls  of  those  he  seeks  to 
mislead,  are  at  risk.  To  him  and  them  the  issue  is  a  solemn  one.  We  think  it 
solemn  enough  to  justify  the  House  of  Bishops  in  setting  apart  a  day  of  humiliation 
and  prayer,  when  we  all,  ‘High’  and  ‘Low,’  but  all  loyal  Churchmen  together,  may 
plead  with  God  for  the  repentance  and  pardon  of  an  unhappy  soul,  who  has 
trampled  on  its  high  and  awful  calling  in  the  Church  of  God — an  apostate  Bishop  ! 
Once  before  we  have  had  the  trial  [Bishop  Ives  ?]  Should  we  not  humble  ourselves 
as  a  Church,  before  the  Great  Bishop,  for  our  own  sins,  and  pray  for  him  V 

(II.  Dec.  31,  So.  Ch;  xiii.  10.) 

Dec.  4.  Prayer  Book  of  1785  (Ch.  Jo.)  The  editor  of  Church  and  State  says: 
“Bishop  Cummins  should  remember  that  the  attacks  which  have  been  made  upon 
him. . .  .are  attributable  in  large  measure  to  his  own  want  of  caution  and  accuracy 
. . .  .The  very  letter  in  which  he  announces  his  abandonment  of  the  communion  of  the 
Church  affords  a  singular  illustration  of  this.  In  alluding  to  the  Revison  of  the 
Prayer  Book  by  Royal  Commission  in  1689,  Bishop  Cummins  says  that  it  failed  to 
receive  the  approval  of  Convocation,  but  that  it  exercised  great  influence  in  the  Pro¬ 
posed  Prayer  Book  by  Bishop  White.  Now  the  facts  are  these. . .  .It  could  hardly 
have  exercised  an  influence  in  the  preparation  of  the  Proposed  Prayer  Book,  for  the 
work  of  the  Royal  Commissioners  was  not  made  public  until  1854 . vi.  1-4. 

[The  preface  to  the  Prayer  Book  of  1785  shows  that  the  error  is  on  the  part  of 
Church  and  State.  At  this  date  the  Prayer  Book  of  1785  was  almost  unknown.] 

vi.  1-4. 

Dec.  4.  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng,  Sr.  (Ch.  Jo.)  In  a  sermon,  “  He  alluded  to  the  case  of 
Bishop  Cummins,  of  whom  he  spoke  as  a  brother  highly  valued  and  truly  beloved, 
who  for  reasons  which  appeared  to  him  (Dr.  Tyng)  without  the  slightest  weight  in 
justification,  has  seceded  from  the  Church  which  had  trusted  him  and  bestowed 
her  honors  upon  him.  The  preacher  desired  to  state  emphatically  his  entire  dis¬ 
approval  of  his  course. . .  .By  seceding  he  had  betrayed  the  very  trust  committed  to 
him — to  defend  evangelical  principles  in  the  Church.  He  had  forsaken  the  company 
of  those  who  had  been  his  faithful  friends.  He  had  acted  most  unwisely  in  at¬ 
tempting  to  construct  a  new  sect,  of  which  there  were  now  too  many,  and  which 
in  time  would  be  found  to  be  imperfect,  and  from  which  others  would  see  reason  to 
secede.  He  was  going  forth  almost  alone,  and  would  find  himself  going  further 
away,  and  becoming  more  solitary,  a  monad,  a  severed  branch,  a  cloud  carried  to 
and  fro  with  the  changes  of  the  wind” .  . xiii.  19. 

Dec.  6.  “  Formally  Deposed  ”  (Chn.)  After  giving  an  account  of  the  organi¬ 
zation  on  Dec.  2,  says,  “  The  readers  of  the  Churchman  scarcely  need  be  reminded 
that  Messrs.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  Charles  E.  Cheney,  and  Mason  Gallagher  were 
formally  deposed  from  the  ministry  several  years  ago,  and  that  Mr.  Leacock  sub¬ 
stantially  renounced  the  ministry  more  than  a  year  since.”. . .  .x,  1-5  ;  xiii,  12,  13. 

Dec.  6.  Christian  Intelligencer  (Clin.)  “  The  Cummins  movement  is  a  vis¬ 
ionary  one.’’ . xiii,  10 

Dec.  10.  Episcopal  Register  (Epis.)  says  the  Null  and  Void  of  Dec.  1  can 
apply  only  to  Kentucky . x,  20 


CHAPTER  II. 


38 

December  11,  1873. 

Dec.  11.  Observer  says,  Null  and  Void  of  Dec.  1,  is  not  authorized  by  the 
Canons  of  the  P.  E.  C.— Reports  the  proceedings  at  the  organizatien  on  Dec.  2,  and 
has  the  following  editorial. 

Dec.  11.  Observer.  The  editor  testifies  from  personal  observation.  “  It  is  not 
safe  for  uninspired  men  to  undertake  to  say,  whereunto  will  grow  the  movement 
which  Bishop  Cummins  has  inaugurated.  We  were  present  last  week  on  Tuesday, 
when  the  ‘  Deformed  Episcopal  Church’  was  organized,  and  there  were  some  note¬ 
worthy  signs  to  be  observed,  of  which  we  will  say  a  word.  It  was  a  serious  busi¬ 
ness  that  the  Bishop  and  they  that  were  with  him  were  engaged  in.  They 
looked  to  God  for  direction.  The  Bishop  said,  if  it  wras  of  God  it  would  stand,  and 
if  it  was  of  man  he  hoped  it  would  fall.  There  was  no  self-sufficiency  nor  human  am-  ■ 
bition  apparent.  The  whole  proceeding  was  that  of  humble,  prayerful,  conscientious 
men,  who  were  not  seeking  their  own  advancement,  nor  the  applause  of  men,  but 
the  honor  of  God  only.  In  the  case  of  the  Bishop,  there  was  positive  sacrifice  of 
place,  power,  salary,  and  friends.  He  is  poor  in  this  world’s  goods,  and  goes  out  in 
faith,  for  conscience  sake.  Such  a  man  is  always  respected,  whether  men  shake 
their  heads  at  him  or  not.  There  were  no  pastors  with  him,  who  had  renounced 
their  ‘  livings,’  but  there  were  men  who  were  ready  to  put  their  future  usefulness  in 
the  Church,  into  the  same  boat  with  the  Bishop,  and  it  was  announced  that  there 
were  twenty-five  who  were  willing  to  follow.  The  announcement,  that  a  few 
Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church  had  interdicted  Bishop  Cummins  from  any  official 
service,  had  been  published,  but  it  did  not  disturb  the  minds  or  vary  the  action  of 
the  new  organization.  It  was  known  to  all  of  them,  that  the  action  was  informal 
and  without  sanction  in  the  Canons  of  the  Church.  If  the  declaration  had  been  put 
by  the  Bench  of  Bishops  lawfully  assembled,  it  would  have  impressed  some  minds 
as  a  valid  act  of  suspension.  Buf  being  merely  the  dictum  of  a  few  suddenly  sum¬ 
moned,  and  having  the  explicit  rule  of  the  Church  directing  the  steps  to  be  taken 
for  arraigning  a  Bishop,  it  is  very  plain  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  announcement 
of  the  few  Bishops  but  a  device  to  weaken  the  force  of  any  authority  which  Bishop 
Cummins  might  exercise  during  the  six  months  that  intervene  between  his  accusa¬ 
tion  and  his  trial.  And  the  doctrine  that  a  man  must  cease  to  be  an  officer  because 
he  is  accused  or  presented  for  trial,  is  monstrous.  There  may  be  cases  when  the 
Court  which  is  to  try,  may  suspend  an  accused  person  during  his  trial,  but  we 
presume  there  is  no  precedent  in  the  State  or  the  Church  for  considering  a  man 
suspended  merely  because  an  individual  or  a  committee  has  charged  him  with  a 
fault.  But  there  was  no  unseemly  haste  in  the  proceedings  of  the  new  Council 
last  week.  They  moved  slowly  and  adjourned  without  any  demonstration  to  chal¬ 
lenge  public  attention.  What  will  come  of  it  remains  to  be  seen.  We  have  no 
doubt  it  will  work  for  good.  It  will  rouse  the  Church  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of 
this  movement;  and  if  it  is  true,  as  Dr.  Tyng,  Jr.,  alleges,  that  the  tendencies  are 
Romeward,  every  honest  minister  and  man  in  the  Church  will  set  himself  strenu¬ 
ously  against  the  current.  Rev.  Dr.  Cheney,  of  Chicago,  with  the  consent  of  his 
people,  accepts  the  office  of  Bishop  in  the  new  Church,  and  Ills  consecration  will 

take  place  witliont  delay.’’ . ii,  Nov.  19,  Ch.  St.  ;  Nov.  2G,  Cath ;  Dec.  4,  Ch. 

rSt. ;  Dec.  17,  Meth.  Rec.  ;  Jan.  21,  Eng.  Ind.;  x,  10-14. 

Dec.  11.  Bishop  H.  W.  Lee  of  Iowa  (Obs.)  “has  written  a  letter  to  Bishop 
Cummins,  expressing  ■  regret  at  his  action,  and  earnestly  entreating  him  to 


CHAPTER  II. 


39 


December  11,  1873. 

reconsider  his  determination.  He  protests  earnestly  against  tlie  movement  for  a 
separate  organization,  and  says :  ‘  A  secessional  or  schismatic  movement  at  this 
time  would,  in  my  opinion,  he  a  greater  evil  than  those  we  are  now  hearing,  and 
from  which  we  may  hope  to  he  relieved  in  due  time.  It  were  far  better  for  our 
extreme  Ritualistic  brethren  to  finally  secede  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  to  which  they 
are  tending,  than  for  yourself  and  others  of  like  mind  to  leave  such  a  Church  as 
ours  for  a  new  ecclesiastical  organization . . . xii,  43  ;  xiii,  5. 

Dec.  11.  Churchman.  (Ohs.)  calls  Bishop  Cummins  the  “Fallen  Bishop.” 

xiii.  10. 

Dec.  12.  Telegram  to  Chicago  (B.  A.)  “  New  York,  12th  Dec.,  1873. — To  Rt. 
Rev.  G.  D.  Cummins,  care  Dr.  C.  E.  Cheney, — I  hereby  formally  and  officially  with¬ 
draw  all  such  Episcopal  authority  as  you  have  heretofore  exercised  under  Canon 
thirteenth,  Title  one. — B.  B.  Smith,  Bishop  of  Kentucky.”  . x.  17  to  22. 

Dec.  13.  Church  and  State  (Trib.)  “  We  cannot  but  pronounce  it  to  be  utterly 
dishonorable  for  Bishop  Cummins  to  exercise  his  functions  as  a  Bishop,  previous  to 
his  Canonical  severance  from  the  Church.” . xiii.  10  ;  ii.  Dec.  16.  Answer. 

Dec.  13.  The  Churchman  (Trib.)  “  Aversion  and  a  deep  sense  of  the  wrong 
attempted  have  brought  the  Churches’  members  more  closely  to  her.  Instinctively 
and  spontaneoqgly  men  of  all  shades  of  opinion  have  united  in  her  defence.  Espe¬ 
cially  the  members  of  those  societies  in  the  Church  to  which  Dr.  Cummins  had 
joined  himself,  and  whose  meetings  he  had  the  indelicacy,  to  say  the  least,  to  par¬ 
ticipate  in  on  the  very  eve  of  his  final  act,  have  promptly  and  most  honorably  and 
most  unmistakably  rebuked  him.” . xiii.  70  ;  13 \  ;  20. 

Dec.  13.  The  Congregationalist  (Trib.)  “  Not  everything,  but  a  great  deal  de¬ 
pends  upon  what  these  men  are  made  of,  what  their  record  is,  what  their  motives 
are.” . References  ii.  Nov.  19,  Bp.  Cummins. 

Dec.  13.  The  Baptist  Weekly  (Trib.)  “  It  will  be  difficult  for  many  of  the 
lowest  of  ‘  Low  Church’ people  to  bring  themselves  to  the  basis  which  has  beeu 
adopted.” . . . xi.  2. 

Dec.  13.  The  Christian  Union  (Trib).  “  The  new  Church  certainly  offers  a 
middle  ground  between  ritualistic  episcopacy  and  non-prelatical  denominations.” 

xi.  2. 

Dec.  17.  Church  Journal  (Epis.)  “  And  is  not  his  [Bishop  Cummins]  honest 
surrender  of  the  trust  for  which  he  finds  that  he  had  no  vocation,  far  better  than 
the  conduct  of  some  who  cling  to  positions  in  the  Church,  in  spite  of  their  alien  in¬ 
clinations.” . xiii.  10. 

Dec.  17.  The  Wisconsin  State  Journal  (Epis.)  “  It  is  a  movement  in  the 
right  direction  towards  placing  the  Episcopal  Church  on  its  original  basis,  it  hav¬ 
ing  been  perverted  to  Romanistic  practices  and  beliefs.”* . xi.  2. 

Dec.  17.  Southern  Churchman  (Epis.)  terms  the  course  of  Bishop  Cummins 
“  a  foolish  one.” . xiii.  10. 

Dec.  17.  Rev.  Abbott  Brown  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (Epis.)  objects  to  the  card  of 
the  Philadelphians  (Dec.  1)  speaking  for  Evangelicals  in  general  instead  of  them¬ 
selves  in  particular . x.  15. 

Dec.  17.  The  Methodist  Recorder  (Epis.)  “  It  seems  to  have  been  a  conscien¬ 
tious  and  honorable  step  in  the  direction  of  reform. .  .No  new  tenets  are  attempted. 
It  is  a  restoration  rather  than  a  reformation. .  .The  new  organization,  although 


40 


CHAPTER  II. 


December  17,  1873. 

small  in  numbers,  includes  already  some  of  the  most  liberal  and  intelligent  minis¬ 
ters  and  laymen  of  the  age.  It  is  not  a  mere  clique  of  discontents. .  .The  Higli- 
Churclimen  are  inclined  to  ridicule  the  movement,  of  course.  Censure,  however, 
from  that  quarter  is  genuine  compliment. .  .In  a  few  years,  if  we  are  to  judge  by 
facts  and  figures,  the  High-Cburclimen  will  have  the  control  of  property,  literature, 
theology,  people  and  all.” . xii.  5G. 

Dec.  31.  Southern  Churchman’s  (Epis.)  correspondent  [see  Dec.  4],  says: 
“  The  Church  Journal . .  .lias  ‘  great  searching  of  heart’  for  the  ‘  division  ’..  .and 
suggests  to  the  Church  a  day  of  humiliation  and  prayer!. .  .The  brother  is  awfully 
solemn.  ‘An  Apostate  Bishop  !  ’  he  exclaims  in  strong  italics. .  .A  Lucifer  fallen 
from  heaven !  Horrible!  ‘Schism  is  a  great  sin.’...  But  the  Church  Journal  is 
angry. .  .We  are  not  going  to  lose  the  ‘  Succession  ’  even  if  some  others  may  get  it. 
That,  in  fact,  is  the  secret  of  the  alarm  and  rage  of  some  parties  against  Bishop 
Cummins.  He  has  gotten  a  True  Episcopacy  from  the  Church,  and  has  made  off 
with  it  and  intends  to  give  it  to  others.  But  if  the  ‘  Succession  ’  is  a  good  thing. . . 
why  not  gladly  give  it  to  the  ‘  Sects,’  and  so  convert  them  into  the  true  jure  dioino 
Churches?” . ii.  Dec.  4,  Ch.  Jo. ;  xii.  9. 

Dec.  31.  Schism.  (Epis.)  Goddard  of  St.  Andrew’s  says  :  “  What  is  schism, 
and  who  are  guilty  of  it?. . . .  Who,  I  ask,  according  to  the  correct  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures,  is  the  schismatic  ?  Who  too  is  the  honest  man  ;  this  Bishop 
accused  of  breaking  his  ordination  vows,  or  the  Bishop  who  stays  in  the  Church, 
receiving  its  support,  enjoying  its  honors,  and  yet  in  heart  is  a  Romanist  ?  Aye  ! 
Who  is  the  schismatic?” . xii,  1-8. 

Dec.  31.  Return  of  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.)  A  southern  presbyter  says :  “I  take  it 
for  granted  that  Bishop  Cummins  and  his  associates  have  not  left  the  old  Episcopal 
Homestead  from  choice,  but  from  constraint  ;  and  that  if  the  next  Genera]  Conven¬ 
tion  will  grant  the  reasonable  requests  of  Evangelical  men,  the  seceders  will 
gladly  return.  If  this  desire  should  not  be  realized  and  Ritualism  be  suffered  still 
to  rule  the  councils  and  services  of  the  Church,  then  will  both  the  wisdom  and  the 
piety  of  this  new  movement  be  apparent  to  all  men.” . xiv,  4-10 

Dec.  31.  Bishop  Pearce  of  Arkansas  (Epis.)  to  Bishop  Smith  :  “  I  learn  from 
press  dispatches  that  proceedings  are  about  to  be  taken  against  your  assistant  of 
Kentucky  under  Canon  9,  Title  ii,  of  the  Digest.  At  this  I  am  surprised,  because 
by  the  express  terms  of  Canon  8,  of  the  same  title,  you  are  positively  required  to 

proceed  according  to  the  form  in  that  Canon  provided . The  proceedings  under 

Canon  9. . .  .could  not  be  concluded  in  less  than  six  months  and  a  half,  hardly  less 
than  seven  months _ and  thus  you  might  be  required  as  presiding  Bishop,  sol¬ 

emnly  to  admonish  a  man  whom  you  had  deposed....  Persist  in.  his  unhappy 
course.  . .  .in  this  most  miserable  case. . .  .tenderness  unspeakable  to  our  misguided 
brother.  If  he  is  at  present  causing  us  perplexity,  how  does  our  trouble  bear  com¬ 
parison  with  his  distress. . .  .founder  of  a  feeble  schism.  This  day  there  is  more 
love  for  him  in  the  Church  he  has  abandoned,  than  among  the  sects  that  are  with 
faint  praise  bearing  him  to  his  destruction, ...  .dying  in  the  Communion  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  in  the  confidence  of  a  certain  faith.  ” . x,  3  ;  xii,  10. 

Jan.  1, 1874.  Apostolic  Succession  (Obs.)  Church  and  State  says,  “  If  presbyters 
ordained  by  Bishops  of  the  ‘  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,’  should  at  any  time  wish 
to  abandon  that  communion  and  become  presbyters  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 


CHAPTER  II. 


41 


January  1,  1874. 

Church,  they  must  be  received. . . .  This  fact  appears  now  to  be  the  most  painful 


feature  of  the  separation.” . xiii,  13  ;  xi,  43. 

Jan.  12.  Jas.  A.  Latan6  withdraws  from  the  P.  E.  C . iii# 


Jan.  21.  The  English  Independent  (Epis.)  of  Dec.  25,  1873,  says :  “  The 
Evangelical  Alliance  has  been  the  immediate  cause  of  creating  a  secession  from  the 
Episcopal  Church.  That  extraordinary  communion. . . .  Bishop  Cummins,  like  Dr* 
Pyne  Smith,  has  been  heartily  and  abundantly  abused  for  taking  part  in  it.... 
probably. ..  .only  the  last  stroke  of  many. ..  .and  though  at  the  cost  of  social 
status  and  in  the  face  of  a  storm  of  obloquy,  they  have  dared  to  be  true  to  their  con¬ 
sciences.  . . .  We  are  compelled  to  contrast  their  decisive  action  with  the  hesitating, 
apologetic  policy,  which  characterizes  and  enfeebles  the  Evangelical  party  in  our 
own  land. . .  .[whose]  speeches  are  full  of  bitterness  and  indignation.  They  hold 
public  meetings  and  sign  memorials  and  petitions  ad  libitum,  to  their  Bishops  ; 
they  assert  that  their  consciences  are  wounded  ;  that  the  truth  they  love  so  well, 
and  for  which  they  are  ready  to  die,  is  endangered,  and  yet  strangely  enough  they 

do  nothing  practical.  .. .  Golden  fetters _ That  these  Episcopalian  seceders  are 

resolved  to  lay  down  a  broad,  intelligible  basis  for  their  new  organization  is  evident 
from  the  following  three  items  of  their  ‘  Declaration  of  Independence  ’  [of  prin¬ 
ciples.].  . .  .Bishop  Cummins  has  set  a  brave  example. . .  .xii,  48  ;  v,  4  ;  xiii,  10,  22. 

Jan.  21.  Catholicus  (Epis.)  Rev.  G.  W.  Ridgely,  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  says,  with 
respect  to  the  “  Card”  (Dec.  1,  1873).  “  They  were  taken  by  surprise;  . . .  .they were 
in  the  condition  of  certain  good  people  mentioned  in  the  12th  chapter  of  Acts,  who 
were  intensely  and  earnestly  engaged  in  prayer  for  a  certain  thing,  and  when  their 
prayer  was  unexpectedly  answered,  they  ran  away  affrighted,  and  declared  that  they 
had  seen  a  ghost !” . x.  15. 

Jan.  22.  Apostolic  Succession  (Obs.  Ed.)  “The  Church  Journal,  one  of  the 
most  earnest  opposers  of  Bishop  Cummins’  movement,  lays  down  the  law  in  these 
words :  ‘  Bishop  Cummins  is  still  a  Bishop.  His  acts  are  uncanonical,  irregular,  in¬ 
valid  to  the  Church,  but  they  are  still  the  acts  of  a  Bishop.  The  Orders  of  the  “  R. 
E.  C.”  will  be  just  the  same  as  ours.  “  Once  a  Bishop,  always  a  Bishop,”  is  the  ex¬ 
pression  of  the  doctrine  about  orders’  ” . xiii.  13;  xi.  43. 

Jan.  22.  Bishop  Cheney  (Obs.)  “  Church  and  State,  edited  by  Rev.  John  Cot¬ 
ton  Smith,  D.D.,  speaks  of  Bishop  Cheney,  and  says:  ‘  We  see  no  reason,  on  any 
Church  principles,  why  he  is  not  truly  a  Bishop.  And  if  he  is  truly  a  Bishop,  in 
the  line  of  Apostolic  Succession,  we  do  not  see  how  it  helps  the  matter  to  withhold 
the  title  from  him.’  ” . . .  .xiii.  13  ;  xi.  43. 

Jan.  29.  Dilemmas  (Ch.  St.)  “  We  have  expressed,  from  the  first,  our  unquali¬ 
fied  disapprobation  of  the  establishment  of  the  R.  E.  C.  . .  .According  to  what 
we  have  called  Church  principles,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the 
Apostolic  Succession  exists,  where  one  who  has  been  duly  consecrated  a  Bishop  con¬ 
secrates  another  to  that  office.  . .  .The  position  of  the  Old  Catholics  is  now  largely 
occupying  our  attention  and  exciting  our  interest.  Some  of  our  Bishops  of  most 
advanced  Churclimanship  have  recognized  them  as  a  Catholic  Church  wiili  Apos¬ 
tolic  Orders . It  may  not  be  desirable  to  inquire  too  particularly  into  facts  relating 

to  the  Succession  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  consequently  in  our  own  Church  in 
this  country. ..  .Our  correspondents  do  say  that  embarrassing  results  would  flow 
from  the  idea,  that  a  Bishop,  under  some  unworthy  motive,  may  extend  the  Sue* 


CHAPTER  II. 


42  ' 

January  29,  1874. 

cession  to  all  sorts  of  religious  bodies,  and  thus  give  rise  to  endless  ecclesiastical 
irregularity.  But  those  who  hold  the  sacramental  character  ol  Orders,  are  com¬ 
pelled  to  accept  this  peril.  They  are  placed  in  a  dilemma  from  which  it  is 
impossible  to  escape. . .  .We  cannot  but  regard  the  establishment  of  a  rival  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  as  an  unmixed  evil.... Our  earnest  desire  is  that  every  reason, 
whether  satisfactory  or  otherwise,  for  the  existence  of  such  a  body  should  be  taken 
away,  and  that  every  facility  should  be  provided  for  a  return  to  the  Church. . . . 
The  plain  fact  is,  and  it  is  infatuation  to  ignore  it,  that  a  great  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  separation  of  a  large  number  from  the  P.  E.  C.  has  been  removed  by  the 


establishment  of  the  R.  E.  C.” . xiii.  13;  xi.  43. 

Feb.  18.  Bishop  Johns  (Epis.)  The  answer  of  Bishop  Johns  to  Mr.  Latine. 
[It  is  long,  argumentative,  gentle.]  (See  March  4,  1874) . xiii.  G. 


Feb.  23,  Bishop  Lewis,  of  Canada,  reported  in  the  Ottawa  Times,  says  that 
he  did  not  at  first  think  the  Cummins  movement  of  sufficient  importance  to  notice. 
He  thought  that  the  assertion  that  “  God  had  put  it  into  his  heart  ”  was  not  consis¬ 
tent  with  the  same  when  he  became  a  Methodist  minister,  then  Deacon,  Presbyter, 
Bishop  in  the  P.  E.  C.  (  ).  That  he  begins  the  revision  where  the  Church  of 

Ireland  leaves  offi  That  he  hoped  to  gain  adherents  by  the  charm  of  a  spurious 
Apostolic  Succession.  That  the  late  Synod  in  Philadelphia  had  distinctly  re¬ 
pudiated  and  condemned  it.  “  If  these  seceders  were  men  of  learning  he  [Bishop 
Lewis]  might  meet  them  in  discussion  fitly  enough.”  It  was  “for  the  purpose  of 
setting  up  a  petty  American  3ect.’’  The  report  (of  the  substance  only)  concludes, 
“  The  congregation  listened  attentively,  and  evidently  did  not  escape  impressions  of 
some  kind” . xiii.  14-17 ;  iii.  Dec.  31,  1874,  Toronto. 

Feb.  25.  Bishop  Whittingham  (see  March  14) . xiii.  10. 

Feb.  26.  Bishop  Lee  of  Delaware  (So.  Ch.)  In  this  kind  and  Christian  letter, 
dated  Nov.  14, 1873,  and  therefore  referring  only  to  the  resignation  of  Nov.  10,(vii.  1.) 
he  blames  Bishop  Cummins  :  First,  for  not  consulting  with  him  and  other  Evangeli¬ 
cals  before  taking  the  final  step.  Second,  he  presents  one  horn  of  a  dilemma,  that 
if  this  step  was  determined  on  before  the  Evangelical  meetings  in  Philadelphia, 
then  Bishop  Cummins  did  wrong  in  taking  part  in  those  meetings.  Third,  the 
other  horn  of  the  dilemma,  that  if  he  had  not,  then  from  that  date  to  Nov.  10, 1873, 
there  was  too  little  time  for  reflection,  and  the  action  was  hasty  and  inconsiderate. 
Fourth,  he  protests  against  a  new  organization . xiii,  18-22 

March  4.  Bishop  Johns  (Epis.)  A  writer  in  the  Wheeling  Intelligencer,  in  a 
criticism  of  Bishop  Johns’  answer  to  Mr.  Latane  (Feb.  18  says) :  “  As  to  the  general 
tone  and  spirit  of  the  Bishop’s  letter,  when  I  say  that  it  is  characteristic  of  the 
man,  that  is,  eminently  Christian,  I  have  said  all  that  need  be  uttered  on  that 
point.” . xiii,  G. 

March  4.  Hev.  Dr.  Howard  Crosby  (Epis.),  Moderator  of  the  Presbyterian 
General  Assembly,  on  Feb,  22,  supplied  the  pulpit  for  Bishop  Cummins  (as  reported 
in  Trib.)  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher  referred  in  general  to  the  cases  mentioned. 

xii,  27,  28. 

March  4.  Bishop  Cummins  (Epis.)  preached  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  Passaic,  N.  J . xv. 

March  11.  At  Montreal  (Epis.)  the  Rev.  Mr.  Youngs,  of  the  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  delivered  a  lecture  in  favor  of  the  R.  E.  C .  . . . xv. 


CHAPTER  II. 


43 


March  14,  1874. 

March  14.  Bishop  Whittingham  (Clin.)  answers  Rev.  W.  McGuire’s  letter 
dated  Feb.  6  (vii,  6,)  “  Your  talk  of  dissolving  your  connection  with  the  P.  E.  C. 
to  unite  with  the  R  E.  C.  is  (excuse  my  plain  speaking)  a  baseless  dream.  One 
perjured  Bishop  no  more  makes  a  Church,  than  one  swallow  makes  a  summer.” 


[How  about  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  Ridley?] . xiii,  10 

March  25.  Low  Church  (Epis.)  “  Quirist.” . iii. 


March  25.  Independent  (Epis.)  “We  think  it  a  mistake  to  surrender  so 
tamely.”  This  is  in  answer  to  “  S.  B.,”  who  says,  “  One  of  the  ablest  seceders,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Latane,  of  Virginia,  has  well  said,  the  battle  has  been  fought  in  the 
Church  and  lost  by  the  Evangelical  party.”  Episcopalian  says,  “  As  long  ago  as 
the  famous  effort  of  Drs.  Anthon  and  Smith  in  their  protest  against  the  ordination 

of  Mr.  Crary,  a  battle  was  fought  and  lost.” . xii,  56-59 

April  22.  Hev.  John  Fulton,  D.D.  (Epis.)  “  Thus  far  I  have  heard  and  seen 
not  one  word  nor  one  act  but  such  as  savored  of  Nicene  charity.  In  this  our 
Church  press,  at  least  the  High  Church  press,  so  often  hurried  into  injudicious 
phrase,  has  earned  our  highest,  heartiest  gratitude  for  its  sublime  self-mastery. 
There  has  been  ample  room  for  such  words  as  perjury,  treachery,  ungentlemanlike 
infidelity  to  Church  and  party.  These  words  to  the  honor  of  the  Church  he  ha  s 
repudiated,  the  party  he  has  forsaken  and  betrayed  have  not  been  spoken.” 

xiii,  23  ;  ii,  April  30,  1874;  iii,  Oct.  3,  1874. 
April  22.  Hev.  Marshall  B.  Smith.  (Epis.)  Dismissed  from  the  Reformed 
(Dutch)  Church,  to  the  P.  E.  C.  In  his  letter  addressed  to  the  Classis  of  Paramus 
dated  Nov.  28,  1873,  he  says :  “  As  is  well  known  to  you  all,  I  withdrew  from  the 
P.  E.  C.  on  account  of  its  Ritualism,  erroneous  teachings  on  the  subject  of  the 
Christian  Sacraments,  exclusive  Canons,  and  unchurching  dogmas. ...  A  church  is 
now  to  be  organized,  such  as  I  longed  and  prayed  for  before  I  left  the  so  called 
4  Protestant  ’  Episcopal  Church. . .  .1  therefore  desire  to  unite  with  it  and. . .  .roquest 
that  you  will  grant  me  a  letter  of  dismission  to  the  proper  ecclesiastical  authority. 
....  To  me  you  have  offered  a  welcome  refuge  from  the  storm  of  ecclesiastical 
strife.”  In  answer,  the  Classis  “  Resolved,  That  as  a  Classis,  we  appreciate  the 
motives  which  the  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith  assigns  for  separating  from  this  body 
and  that  they  in  no  wise  conflict  with  his  former  declaration,  but  are  in, 

correspondence  with  his  previous  honorable  record.” . vii,  2-4;  ix,  4, 

10;  xiv,  6. 

April  22.  Bishop  Lewis  of  Ottawa  (Epis.)  The  Church  Herald  of  Toronto 
says :  “  His  Lordship  [Bishop  Lewis]  delivered  an  address  in  Ottawa  on  Sunday 
last  on  the  insidious  schism  lately  imported  into  Canada  from  the  State  of  Ken¬ 
tucky.”  The  Episcopalian  continues  :  “  A  little  while  ago  the  movement  was  insig¬ 
nificant, now  it  is  dangerous.” . xiii,  14-17 

April  30.  Southern  Churchman  says  that  Dr.  Fulton,  the  learned  editor  of 
the  Index  Canonum,  has  written  a  letter  in  excellent  spirit :  “  The  object  is  to  show 
how  Bishop  Cummins  and  his  friends  can  be  brought  back,  and  to  prove  that  the 


consecrations  and  ordinations  of  Bishop  Cummins  are  valid.” . ii,  April  22, 

1874  ;  iii,  Oct.  31,  1874  ;  xiii,  23,  Fulton. 

April  30.  Murray  Hoffman  (So.  Ch.)  in  the  Churchman  opposes  the  views  of 
Dr.  4  ultou  above. ...  . xiii,  13. 


May  7.  Bishop  Quintard  of  Tennessee  (Ch.  St.)  “And  another  Bishop  of 


44 


CHAPTER  II. 


May  7,  1874. 

tlie  Clmrch  has  gone  from  us — gone  from  us  and  passed  not  through  a  gate  of 
God’s  own  opening — of  whom  we  cannot  say  as  with  thankful  hearts  of  our  dead 
fathers  in  God,  that  ‘  God  took  him.’  One  who  shared  with  us  the  dignity  of  the 
Apostolic  office,  and  who  should  have  shared  the  burdens  which  belong  to  it,  has 
cast  aside  the  one  and  retreated  from  the  other.  I  think  I  should  fail  to  express 
the  mind  and  spirit  of  the  Church  did  I  follow  him  with  one  word  of  reproach. 
Personally  I  stand  appalled  in  contemplation  of  the  weight  of  responsibility  he  has 
chosen  without  his  office  in  a  position  to  which  God  has  not  invited  him,  in 
exchange  for  that  which  belonged  to  him  in  his  office.  But  the  matter  is  by  no 
means  a  personal  one.  The  Church  is  not  appalled.  She  looks  with  a  mother's 
tenderness,  intensified  by  disappointment,  upon  the  evil  course  of  her  wayward  son  ; 
and  she  will  never  cease  to  pursue  him  with  her  prayers  for  the  grace  of  repent¬ 
ance  and  a  better  mind.”  [The  Bishop  of  Rome  will  say  the  same  of  Bishop  Quin- 
tard] . xiii,  10. 

May  13  to  19.  Second  General  Council  of  the  R.  E.  C . i,  May 

13  to  19,  1874  ;  xi,  26,  30  to  37. 

May  14.  Tribune  refers  to  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill  (April  22);  gives  the  sermon  by 
Bishop  Cheney  on  the  opening  of  the  second  Council,  May  13;  relates  the  different 
views  in  the  congregation  of  the  Church  of  the  Atonement  as  to  recalling  the  Rev. 
W.  T.  Sabine  as  a  congregation  of  the  R.  E.  C. 

May  15.  Tribune  editor,  with  respect  to  the  second  Council  of  the  R.  E.  C., 
says  :  “  A  compromise  was  reached  upon  the  question  of  the  election  of  vestrymen 
...  A  plan  of  union  with  the  Free  Church  of  England  was  adopted.  This  prac¬ 
tically  makes  the  two  bodies  one  [  ?  ].  Notwithstanding  very  outspoken  opinion 
on  the  part  of  delegates,  and  no  little  division  of  sentiment  upon  certain  points, 
there  has  thus  far  been  a  noticeable  unanimity  on  the  final  vote,  and  a  decided 
good  feeling  has  prevailed.  The  prospect  looks  very  bright  to  the  members,  and 
occasional  remarks  in  the  course  of  the  debates,  as  well  as  other  circumstances, 
have  indicated  that  men  prominent  in  the  P.  E.  C.  [and  other  denominations],  who 
have  not  become  adherents  of  the  new  movement,  are  lending  their  counsel  at  every 
step ...  It  remained  to  the  evening  session  to  witness  the  liveliest  discussion  of  the 
Council. .  .on  the  words  ‘  He  descended  into  Hell.’  ” . xi.  38-42. 

May  15.  Herald  says:  “Large  attendance  of  ministers  of  other  denomina¬ 
tions.  Skirmishing  hot  and  heavy  along  the  entire  line. .  .The  war  on  the  choice 
of  Church  officers  [vestrymen]  was  renewed,  but  was  soon  happily  brought  to  a 
speedy  conclusion  by  a  compromise ...  The  Constitution  and  Canons,  as  a  whole, 
were  then  adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote.” . > . !  .xi.  38-42. 

May  21.  Church,  and  State  says :  “  The  past  week  has  witnessed  the  meeting 
of  the  Council  of  the  R.  E.  C.  It  has  been  a  sad  spectacle  of  what  is  likely  to  be¬ 
come  of  men  who  drift  away  from  their  historical  moorings.  At  the  inception  of 
the  movement,  it  was  claimed  that  the  Prayer  Book  of  1785  solved  all  the  difficul¬ 
ties,  and  was  exactly  what  was  needed  for  a  Protestant  and  Evangelical  Church. 
Now,  however,  it  is  found  that  many  serious  alterations  are  necessary,  which  have 
been  made  amid  much  heated  controversy.  The  text  in  the  Apostles’  Creed  has 
been  changed  by  the  omission  of  the  clause,  ‘  He  descended  into  Hell  ’ — though 
any  Church  is  allowed  to  use  it,  or  the  alternate  phraseology,  as  found  in  our 
Prayer  Book.  It  was  proposed  by  one  of  the  delegates,  that  the  title  of  Rev.  be 


CHAPTER  II. 


45 


May  21,  1874. 

dropped  as  applied  to  tlie  ministry,  on  the  ground  tliat  it  was  blasphemous.  It  is 
easv  to  see  from  this  and  other  indications,  what  are  the  dangers  that  are  before 
this  new  organization.  The  great  mistake  they  have  made  is  in  supposing  that 
they  had  arrived  at  the  logical  terminus  of  their  tendency.  They  are  just  begin¬ 
ning  to  get  a  glimpse  of  the  dreary  waste  of  fanaticism  and  folly  which  stretches 
before  them.  They  will  find  that  there  are  plenty  who  will  wish  to  reform  their 
Church  j  ust  as  they  have  attempted  to  reform  upon  the  Church  they  have  left. 
Still  they  have  secured  a  status  and  probably  a  career  before  them.  This  is  some¬ 
thing  to  which  it  will  be  well  for  us  to  take  lieed.’Lii.  June  3,  Epis. ;  xi.  39  ;  xiii.  10. 

June  3.  Episcopalian,  Correspondent,  copies  the  above :  “  May  21,  Church  and 
State  ”  (dating  it  “  May  27  ”)  and  says  :  “  Now  it  is  certainly  strange  to  see  a  paper 
which  is  edited  by  a  clergyman,  making  positive  statements  as  matters  of  fact, 
which  in  charity  he  should,  at  least,  suppose  to  be  untrue  ;  but  how  can  it  be  possi¬ 
ble  that  the  following  errors  have  crept  into  this  article  and  be  stated  so  unequivo¬ 
cally,  when  tlie  ‘presumption  is  that  changes  consistent  with  the  reasons  for  the 
separation  would  be  made  ?  1st.  It  has  never  been  claimed  that  the  Prayer  Book 
of  1785  solved  all  the  difficulties  and  was  exactly  what  was  needed  for  a  Protestant 
and  Evangelical  Church.  This  Book  was  publicly  and  privately  accepted  as  a  basis 
of  revision  only,  and  the  R.  E.  C.  has  never  accepted  the  position  which  its  oppo¬ 
nents  have  tried  to  force  upon  it  in  that  -respect.  2d.  The  Apostles’  Creed  has  not 
been  changed  from  the  form  of  the  book  of  1785,  though  an  effort  is  thus  made  by 
the  Church  and  State  to  insinuate  that  it  has.  3d.  It  was  not  proposed  by  one  of 
the  delegates  that  the  title  Reverend  be  dropped  as  applied  to  the  ministry,  as 
blasphemous,  or  for  any  other  reason.  Has  the  periodical  in  question  lost  its  char¬ 
acter  for  truth  and  veracity,  or  does  it  publish  without  investigation  ?  Perhaps  it 
is  as  well  to  add  that  there  was  no  ‘  heated  controversy,’  but  quiet,  earnest  discus¬ 
sion,  resulting  in  unanimous  agreement  in  almost  every  case,  and  a  brotherly  unity, 
the  evidences,  as  it  is  believed,  of  a  Divine  blessing.”  The  editor  continues:  “  We 
very  much  regret  to  find  that  the  same  article  was  copied  into  the  Diocesan  paper 
of  Ohio,  the  Standard  of  the  Cross . xi.  39  ;  xii.  59  ;  xiii.  10. 

June  3.  Bishop  Odenheimer  (Epis.),  in  his  address  to  the  Convention  of  New 
Jersey,  May  2G,  1874,  says:  “The  last  year  has  brought  upon  the  whole  Church  an 
occasion  of  trouble  in  the  ^scliismatical  action  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Cummins.  As  all 
the  facts  connected  with  the  schism  have  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  Church¬ 
men,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  or  expedient  to  do  more  than  record  the  fact  of  his 
ungodly,  unchurchly,  and  ungenerous  action.  Let  us  keep  from  our  discussion,  as 
far  as  possible,  the  distractions  and  errors  of  misguided  men,  and  rather  let  us  fill 
our  thoughts  and  labors  with  the  loving  spirit  of  Christ,  and  unite  ourselves  more 

firmlv  than  ever  in  the  Churches  work  of  making  known  to  all,  the  one  Lord,  one 

— 

Faith,  and  the  one  Baptism  of  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  divine  Redeemer  of  man¬ 
kind.  Our  sorrow  is  for  those  who  separate  from  the  Holy  Church  and  faith  in 
Christ.  We  have  no  trouble  for  the  Church  herself;  she  is  the  bride  of  Christ,  the 
offspring  of  His  loving  wisdom  and  power,  and  whether  there  be  trouble  or  pros¬ 
perity  in  the  world  around  her,  the  Church  of  the  living  God  stands  unmoved, 
'  through  the  promise  of  Christ,  ‘  The  gates  of  Hell  shall  not  prevail  against  her.  ” 
[IIow  about  Cramner,  Latimer,  and  Ridley  ?]....- . xii.  56,  59;  xiii.  8,  10. 

June  3.  Church  Journal  (Epis.)  of  May  28:  “We  have  just  witnessed  the  ses- 


46 


CHAPTER  II. 


June  3,  1874. 

sions  of  the  ‘  Reformed  ’  Episcopal  Church,  presided  over  by  the  queerest  ‘  Bishop/ 
except  Jules  Ferrette,  Bishop  of  Iona,  since  John  Wesley  made  a  ‘  Bishop  ’  of  Dr. 
Coke  in  his  bed-room  at  Bath .  . xi.  39  ;  xii.  56,  59  ;  xiii.  10. 

June.  3.  The  Churchman  (Epis.)  of  April  23,  1874,  finishes  an  editorial  on  this 
,  subject  thus :  “  It  is  to  be  hoped  all  will  follow  carefully  the  record  of  these  and 
similar  proceedings,  for  it  may  have  the  effect  that  showing  a  drunken  slave  to  a 
Spartan  child  was  expected  to  have” . xi.  39;  xiii.  10. 

June  3.  Hev.  Dr.  Stewart  (Epis.)  in  the  Convention  of  Pennsylvania,  as  re¬ 
ported  in  Telegraph  of  May  27,  referring  to  (June  10,  Bishop  Stevens)  says  :  “  I  send 
no  fiery  words  of  scorn  and  condemnation  after  those  whom  others  hailed  as  friends 
and  brothers  a  few  months  ago,  and  fostered  by  argument  and  action  in  disaffection 
to  the  Church,  while  they  were  yet  in  her,  until  having  lived  and  burrowed  like 
maggots  in  her  body,  they  at  last  took  wings  and  flew  away  under  the  guidance  of 
the  god  of  flies” . . xiii.  10. 

June  3.  Kentucky  Convention  (Epis.)  A  correspondent  says  of  Bishop 
Smith :  “  Although  censuring  Bishop  Cummins,  was  mild  and  conciliatory.” 

xiii.  10 

June  3.  Bishop  Smith,  of  Kentucky  (Epis.),  in  his  annual  address,  says : 
“  But  far  different,  and  much  harder  to  bear,  is  the  bereavement  which  has  fallen 
upon  our  stricken  diocese.  Had  our  late  assistant  Bishop  fallen  at  his  post,  loyal  to 
the  Church  of  his  adoption,  and  true  to  the  solemn  vows  and  promises  which  he 
made  in  this  city  less  than  eight  years  ago,  we  could  have  celebrated  his  obsequies 
with  tender  fraternal  and  filial  tears ;  but  his  abandonment  of  his  post,  and  his  for¬ 
getfulness  of  his  covenant  engagements,  overwhelmed  us  with  astonishment  and 
filled  our  hearts  with  anguish.  But  this  is  a  subject  upon  which  I  dare  not  express 
myself  otherwise  than  in  the  words  of  the  loving  and  beloved  disciple  (1  John  ii. 
19),  ‘  He  went  out  from  us,  but  he  was  not  of  us,  for  if  he  had  been  of  us,  no  doubt 
he  would  have  continued  with  us,  but  he  went  out  that  it  might  be  manifest  that  he 
was  not  of  us.’  ”  [Now,  was  Cramner  or  Latimer  or  Ridley  “  Anti-Christ,”  for  that 
is  the  reference  above?] . xiii.  10. 

June  10.  Bishop  Howe  (Epis.),  of  Central  Pennsylvania,  says  :  “  The  Episco¬ 
pate  of  our  Church  has  been  reduced  by  another  and  unprecedented  removal,  the 
defection  of  Dr.  George  David  Cummins,  late  assistant  Bishop  of  Kentucky,  whom 
once  the  Church  delighted  to  honor.  It  would  be  very  unbecoming  and  gratuitous 
to  depreciate  him  now.  He  has  enlisted  alone  for  an  effort  which  will  demonstrate 
his  true  measure  and  quality.  For  any  mental  distress  through  which  it  might  be 
supposed  a  Christian  man  of  mature  years  must  have  passed  before  engaging  in 
such  an  enterprise,  I  could  afford  hearty  sympathy,  but  it  is  difficult  to  estimate 
how  severe  the  struggles  of  a  Bishop  must  have  been,  who  at  such  a  crisis  in  his 
life,  had  self-reliance  enough  to  act  without  taking  counsel  from  any  of  his 
brethren.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  by  secession  (it  is  another  name  for  retreat  from 
the  face  of  alleged  evils,  which  in  loyalty  to  his  convictions  it  was  his  duty  to  con¬ 
front)  he  has  strengthened  in  the  Church  the  power  whose  prevalence  he  evades, 
first  by  withdrawing  his  own  resistance  and  that  of  his  fellow  decedents,  and  fur¬ 
ther  by  the  natural  recoil,  which  all  careful  minds  will  experience,  from  that  verge 
of  opinion,  from  which  one  and  another,  and  at  last  one  over-provident  Bishop  has 
fallen  off  into  dissent,  from  ritual  uniformity . xii.  43. 


CHAPTER  II. 


47 


June  10,  1874. 

June  10.  Bishop  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania  (Epis.)  as  quoted  June  10;  open 
letter  of  Marshall  B.  Smith,  dated  June  6,  1874:  “  Since  we  last  met  in  Convention 
an  event  has  occurred  which  is  unparalleled  in  our  Church.  One  of  its  Bishops  has 
abandoned  its  communion,  and  transferred,  as  he  declared,  the  work  and  office, 
which  by  consecration  he  received  from  this  Church,  to  another  sphere.  That  other 
sphere  has  proved  to  he  the  establishing  of  a  ‘  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.’  This 
unfaithfulness  to  his  three-fold  vows  of  ordination,  this  needless  rending  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  he  has  crowned  by  an  act  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  Christ’s 
Church — the  consecration  by  his  single  self  of  a  lawfully  deposed  clergyman  to  the 
work  and  office  of  a  Bishop.  Vigorous  efforts  have  been  made  by  this  disaffected 
sect  to  asperse  the  purity  of  our  Church,  and  sow  seeds  of  discontent  amidst  our 
clergy  and  laity.  To  this  end,  falsehood,  misrepresentations,  perversions,  have  been 
resorted  to  through  the  Press  and  the  Pulpit,  in  reference  to  our  Prayer  Book,  our 
polity,  and  our  legislation.” . See  next,  and  xiii.  10,  24. 

June  10.  Open  Letter  (Epis.)  by  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  in  answer  to  (June 
10  Bishop  Stevens) :  “  When  the  press  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  High,  Low,  and  Broad,  with 
a  single  exception  [Episcopalian?]  assailed  our  movements. . .  .with  hard  epithets 
and  cruel  reproaches,  we  made  no  reply. . .  .in  the  secular  or  religious  papers  writ¬ 
ten  by  any  member  of  our  organization  until  a  month  ago  [xiii.  11.].... No  one, 
not  even  Bishop  Cummins  himself,  thought  of  the  present  organization  until  after 
Bishop  Cummins’  letter  of  withdrawal  was  in  print  [ix.  4  to  9.]  The  R.  E.  C.  grew 
out  of  suggestions  made  to  him  in  my  presence. . .  .If  perpetual  allegiance  be  due 
when  ‘vows’  of  ordination  are  assumed,  then  should  the  Church  of  England,  and 
all  in  Anglican  orders,  be  in  subjection  to  Rome  to-day. ..  .If  I  am  correctly  in¬ 
formed,  you  are  among  those  who  consider  the  ‘  Old  Catholics  ’. . .  .a  valid  Church 
. .  .Whence  do  they  derive  their  Episcopacy  ?  Undoubtedly  from  the  Jansenist  Church 
of  Holland.  In  the  records  of  the  ‘  consecrations’  of  the  Bishops  of  that  Church,  begin¬ 
ning  with  Cornelius  Steenoven  (consecrated  Oct.  15,  1724,  as  Bishop  of  Utrecht,  by  one 
Bishop  and  two  Presbyters),  I  find  the  following  Bishops  were  also  consecrated  by 
one  Bishop,  with  the  aid  of  Presbyters  :  T.  Van  der  Croon,  consecrated  Archbishop 
of  Utrecht,  Oct.  28,  1734;  K.  J.  Rinkel,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Haarlem,  August  11, 
1873  ;  J.  H.  Reinldns,  ‘  Alt-Kaltlioliken,'  Bishop,  Aug.  11,  1873.  In  the  latter  case 
all  the  parties  concerned  had  been  either  ‘  lawfully  deposed  ’  or  were  under  ‘  histori¬ 
cal  excommunication.’ _ Our  ideas  of  the  ministry  and  of  the  Church  are  sub¬ 

stantially  those  held  by  yourself  when  rector  of  St.  Andrew’s  Church,  Philadelphia, 
as  I  find  them  in  a  printed  sermon  of  yours  now  before  me,  and  from  which. . .  .1 
make  the  following  extracts,”  etc.  [This  letter  contains  much  more  than  the 
above,  and  is  now  in  a  separate  form  as  one  of  the  documents  of  the  R  E.  C.] 

xiii.  11,  26;  xiv.  3. 

June  11.  Bishop  Bobertson  (Ch.  St.)  in  the  Convention  of  Missouri,  said: 
“  Certain  changes,  which  seek  to  bring  in  errors,  the  Church  has  opposed  ;  which 
would  lose  sight  of  the  Gospel  in  attention  to  petty  details,  were  mentioned,  and 
ceremonies  referred  to,  which  were  such  departures  as  to  call  for  legislation.  Ex¬ 
cessive  symbolism  should  be  prohibited.  The  Church  must  have  such  pronounce¬ 
ments  as  to  show  that  it  is  opposed  to  excessive  ritualism,  and  opposed  to  doctrines 
which  are  so  strange  as  to  be  unscriptural.  In  matters  touching  the  faith,  there 
must  be  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  purpose,  to  reserve  ours  as  a  reformed  and 


48 


CHAPTER  II. 


June  11,  1874. 

spiritual  Church.  These  questions  have  been  thrust  to  the  front  by  the  recent  de¬ 
fection  of  a  Bishop  to  set  up  a  rival  Church.  This  step  was  as  causeless  as  it  is 
likely  to  be  fruitless.  He  trusted  the  Church  to  have  grace  to  learn  the  lesson  of 
self-abasement  suggested.  They  should  look  within  and  correct  what  may  have 
caused  this,  rather  than  indulge  in  censure  and  invective  ” . xii.  43. 

June  13.  Bishop  H.  W.  Lee  (Chn.)  in  the  Iowa  Convention,  May  26,  said: 
“  Our  own  troubles  have  culminated  during  the  past  year  in  a  secession  from  the 
Church  and  in  the  organization  of  a  new  ecclesiastical  body  under  the  name  of  the 
*  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.’  The  movement  is  not  thus  far  a  strong  one,  but 
still  one  to  be  deprecated  and  deplored.  It  is  based  on  a  narrow  foundation,. . .  .ill- 

advised  and  unfortunate . I  may  give  utterance  to  deep  regret  and  sorrow  that 

these  brethren  have  committed  so  sad  a  mistake,  and  taken  upon  themselves 
such  a  fearful  responsibility. . . .  The  movement. . .  .is  the  result  of  extreme  views 
in  one  direction,  but. . .  .we  are  suffering  from  other  and  opposite  views,. . .  .those 
Romanizing  views  which. . .  .have  so  disturbed  the  Church  of  England  as  well  as 
our  own  in  this  country.  I  can  respect  a  sincere  and  consistent  Romanist  in  his 
own  Church  ;  but  virtual  and  essential  Romanism  in  our  P.  E .  C.  is  out  of  place 
and  should  receive  our  unanimous  and  unqualified  disapprobation....  Who  can 
doubt  that  such  things  as  Eucharistic  adoration,  auricular  confession,  invocation  of 
•  the  Virgin  Mary, prayers  for  the  dead,  vestments  which  symbolize  peculiar  Eucha¬ 
ristic  doctrines,  a  scenic  and  sensuous  worship  with  crossings  and  genuflections, 
lights  and  incense,  and  other  kindred  matters,  are  in  entire  opposition  to  the  true 
spirit  and  history  of  the  Church  ;  and  that  they,  if  permitted  and  practiced,  would 
eat  out  its  very  vitals  as  a  Reformed  and  Primitive  Church,  and  sap  its  foundations 
as  an  Apostolic  body,  and  as  one  restored  from  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  ages  of 
darkness  and  superstition  ?  It  would  seem  that  some  in  England’s  noble  Church 
and  in  our  own,  were  really  desirous  to  undo  the  work  of  the  English  Reformation  ; 
holding  views  for  denying  which  some  of  the  most  distinguished  Reformers 
suffered  at  the  stake,  ignoring  practically  the  simple  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and 
laboring  to  revive  and  re-establish  a  system  which  the  lessons  of  history  and  expe¬ 
rience  teach  us  to  loathe  and  reject  as  contrary  to  God’s  Word  and  subversive  of 
the  best  interest  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  of  the  highest  good  of  mankind  in  all 
ages.  The  secession  just  referred  to  was  occasioned  in  part  by  this  very  movement, 
which  some  affect  to  call  catholic,  but  which  is  peculiarly  narrow  and  un¬ 
catholic  in  all  its  leanings  and  tendencies.  There  is  no  probability  that  the  Church 
at  large  could  make  all  the  changes  and  modifications  in  the  Prayer  Books  and  in 
our  system  generally  which  the  seceders  desire  and  demand  ;  but  I  hesitate  not 
to  give  my  opinion  that  nothing  which  they  desire  and  demand  is  more  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  true  spirit  and  teachings  of  our  Church,  than  the  views  and  process  of 

those  at  the  opposite  extreme .  An  important  crisis  is  upon  us  as  a  Church,  or 

else  is  rapidly  approaching,  and  let  us  meet  it  in  the  fear  of  God  and  with  a  firm 
determination.” . . . . . xii,  43. 

June  25.  Bishop  Clark  (Ch.  St.)  in  the  Convention  of  Rhode  Island,  said : 

“  During  the  past  year  one  of  our  Bishops  and  a  few  discontented  clergymen  and 
laymen  have  abandoned  our  communion,  while  to  a  certain  extent  they  have  re¬ 
tained  our  own  organization  and  order  of  service,  though  in  a  modified  and  muti¬ 
lated  form.  This  secession  at  present  does  not  assume  a  very  formidable  aspect. 


CHAPTER  II. 


49 


June  25,  1874. 

With,  its  quasi  episcopacy,  its  denuded  services,  and  its  narrowed  platform,  it  pre¬ 
sents  no  features  which  are  likely  to  attract  any  large  numbers,  even  of  the 
disaffected  of  our  own  or  any  other  communion.  And  yet  as  one  of  the 
signs  of  the  times,  it  is  not  to  be  altogether  disregarded.”  [He  then  speaks  of 
changes  in  the  Rubrics  and  says]  :  “  While  it  would  leave  the  text  of  the  Service 
un mutilated,  it  might,  perhaps,  serve  to  quiet  an  agitation  in  our  borders,  which, 
if  it  be  not  allayed,  may  in  time  involve  serious  consequences.”  xi,  36  ;  xiii,  10. 

June  25.  Bishop  Williams  of  Connecticut  (Ch.  St.)  classed  the  defection  of 
Bishop  Cummins  among  things  more  painful  than  death.. . . . xiii,  10. 

June  25,  Bishop  Lee  of  Delaware  (Ch.  St.)  in  Convention  June  3,  is  reported 
thus.  He  “  expressed  great  regret  on  account  of  the  step  taken  by  Dr.  Cummins, 
and  says  that  ‘  the  erroneous  doctrines  which  for  more  than  thirty  years  have  dis¬ 
quieted  and  alarmed  our  Communion,  have  produced  their  legitimate  fruit.  One 
usage  after  another  has  been  introduced  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  the  deep  line 
of  demarkation  drawn  by  our  martyred  Reformers,  has  been,  as  far  as  possible, 
removed.  Instead  of  the  General  Convention  meeting  the  evil  and  danger  with 
outspoken  decision,  the  question  was  evaded  in  1868  and  1871.’  ” . xiii,  5,  21. 

June  25.  The  Christian  Union  (Ch.  St.)  says  :  “  Bishop  Cummins’  secession 
is  the  impulse  which  promises  to  urge  controversies  of  long  standing  to  a  definite 
settlement....  The  cry  is  heard  on  all  sides,  ‘Put  down  the  Ritualists,’ but  we 
hear  very  little  about  freedom  for  Low  Churchmen.”, . xii,  41.  56. 

July  2.  Bishop  Alford  (Ch.  St.),  late  of  Victoria,  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canter¬ 
bury,  says  :  “  To  legislate  that  the  eastward  position  of  the  celebrant  at  the  Holy 
Communion. . .  .is  involved  the  whole  question  of  sacrifice  or  Sacrament,  of  Mass  or 
Lord’s  Supper  . .  .-the  very  heresy  in  faithful  protest  against  which  Archbishop 
Cranmer  and  other  Bishops  died  in  martyrdom  at  the  stake. . .  .it  might  become  a 
most  serious  question  whether. . .  .1  could  continue  my  ministry  within  the  Church 
of  my  forefathers.” . xii,  43. 

July  2.  Bishop  Kerfoot  (Ch.  St.)  of  Pittsburgh,  in  Convention  on  June  11, 
1874,  as  reported — “  referred  to  the  Cummins  movement,  and  stated  that  he  had 
received  a  circular  letter  from  Bishop  Cummins. .  .He  characterized  the  new  move¬ 
ment  as  a  ‘  schism,’  and  a  schism  of  the  character  that  made  it  a  sin.  He  was 
gratified  to  find  that  of  3,000  of  the  clergy,  there  were  very  few  who  had  been 
drawn  away  by  it  from  the  Church — scarcely  half  a  dozen  prominent  men.  .  .  On 
one  side  extreme  and  unwarrantable  Radicalism  was  ‘  sloughing  off'  some  of  the 
Church’s  power ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  corrupt  ion  was  engendered  by  the  revival 
of  old  superstitions,  which  were  not,  and  never  had  been,  legitimately  sanctioned  by 
the  Church.”  [The  Churchman  of  J une  20  has  the  whole  speech,  including  the 
above,  and  the  following] ...“  Punishment  of  an  official  guilty  of  malfeasance  in 
office  ;  of  a  bank  clerk  who  robbed  the  vault ;  or  of  a  man  charged  with  the  man¬ 
agement  of  a  corporation,  who  betrayed  his  trust.” . . . xiii.  10. 

July  8.  Differences  (Epis.)  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill,  President  of  McAllister  College, 
Minneapolis,  holds  service  in  the  chapel,  and  on  the  reverse  of  a  card  used  for  other 
purposes,  gives  the  following  distinctions . ii.  Oct.  27,  1874. 


I.  The  P.  E.  C.  does  not  recognize  the 
ordination  of,  nor  invite  to  preach,  the 
ministers  of  the  Baptist,  Congregational- 


I.  The  R.  E.  C.  recognizes  and  co¬ 


operates  with  these 
Christians. 


denominations  of 


50 


CHAPTER  II. 


July  3,  1874. 

ist,  Lutheran,  Methodist,  and  Presby¬ 
terian  Churches. 

II.  The  P.  E.  C.  asserts  that  a  Bishop 
belongs  to  a  distinct  Order  of  Ministers, 
separate  from  the  Presbyters. 

III.  The  P.  E.  C.  calls  the  Presbyters 
“  Priests.” 

IV.  The  P.  E.  C.  does  not  forbid  the 
use  of  Altars  for  Communion  tables. 

V.  The  P.  E.  C.  requires  the  com¬ 
municants  of  other  churches  to  be  con¬ 
firmed. 

VI.  [Substitute  the  Canon]. 

The  P.  E,  C.  requires  that  “  Every 
minister  shall,  before  all  sermons  and 
lectures,  and  on  all  occasions  of  public 
worship,  use  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  as  the  same  is,  or  may  be,  estab¬ 
lished,  by  the  authority  of  the  General 
Convention  of  this  Church.  And  in  per¬ 
forming  such  service,  no  other  prayers 
shall  be  used  than  those  prescribed  by 
said  Book.” 

VII.  The  P.  E.  C.  does  not  allow  her 

Bishops,  or  other  ministers,  to  resign, 
but  “  deposes  ”  them,  and  then  follows 
them  as  shown . xiii. 

VIII.  Restoration  after  resignation. 
Sec.  II.  Can.  6,  Title  II.  of  the  Gen.  Con. 
of  the  P.  E.  C.  says  :  “ . .  Such  minister 
. .  .shall  express  such  desire,  accompanied 
by  a  statement  that  he  has  abandoned 
the  ministry  of  any  other  Church  or 
Society.  .  .from  an  honest  conviction  of 
the  errors  in  doctrine  or  discipline  of 
such  Church  or  Society,  and... for... 
three  years... has  been  living  in  lay 
communion  with  the  P.  E.  C. .  .the 
Bishop . . .  with  two  Bishops  to  be  select¬ 
ed  by  lot... and  by  and  with  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  Standing  Committee. .  .the 
Bishop  shall  have  power,  with  the  ap¬ 
probation  of  one  or  both  of  the  Bishops 
assisting  him. .  .and  by  and  with  the  ad¬ 
vice  and  consent  of  the.  .  .Standing  Com¬ 
mittee  to  restore  the  memorialist  to  the 
ministry  of  this  Church. .  .if  he  and  they 
are  satisfied. . .” 


II.  The  R.  E.  C.  believes,  as  did  Arch¬ 
bishop  Cranmer,  the  organizer  of  the 
Church  of  England,  that  a  Bishop  is 
only  a  Presbyter  Primus. 

III.  The  R.  E.  C.  calls  them  minis¬ 
ters. 

IV.  The  R.  E.  C.  prohibits  the  erec¬ 
tion  of  an  altar  as  a  communion  table. 

V.  The  R.  E.  C.  receives  exemplary 
Christians  by  letter,  from  the  pastor  or 
other  proper  authority  of  the  Church  to 
which  they  belonged. 

VI.  [Substitute  the  Canon]. 

The  R.  E.  C.  requires  that  “  On  occa¬ 
sions  of  public  worship,  invariably  on 
the  morning  of  the  Lord’s  day,  common¬ 
ly  called  Sunday,  and  at  other  times 
at  the  discretion  of  the  ministers,  the 
Prayer  Book  set  forth  at  any  time  by 
the  General  Council,  is  to  be  used  in  the 
congregations  of  this  Church — provided 
that  nothing  in  this  Canon  is  to  be  un¬ 
derstood  as  precluding  extempore  prayer 
before  and  after  sermons  or  on  emergent 
occasions.” 

VII.  The  R.  E.  C.  allows  her  Bishops 
and  other  ministers  to  resign,  and  gives 
them  letters  dimissory  to  any  Christian 
Church. 

VIII.  By  the  Canons  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  a 
minister  is  restored,  after  resignation, 
upon  the  same  terms  as  when  he  was 
first  received. 


July  8.  Bishop  Paddock  (Epis.)  of  Mass.,  in  Convention  said :  “  There  is 
another  vacancy  in  the  Episcopate,  with  no  such  blessed  memories  and  foreseen 
plaudits  upon  faithfulness  over  a  few  things.  One  concerning  whom  in  these  days 
of  dulled  piety  and  halting  faith,  and  wilful  disloyalty,  that  cannot  be  said  which 
was  said  to  gentle  St.  John’s  successor. . .‘  I  know  thy  works...  that  thou  hast 
borne,  and  hast  patience,  and  for  my  name’s  sake  hast  labored  and  hast  not  faint¬ 
ed;’  one  who  was  called  to  a  Church  avowedly  not  perfect,  and  left  his  first  love, 
and  undertaken  the  headship  of  a  schism.  May  the  Lord  forgive  him.  The  Church 


CHAPTER  II. 


51 


July  8,  1874. 

lias  no  anathemas,  but  only  tears  for  him.  ‘  From  all  false  doctrine,  heresy,  and 
schism,  Good  Lord  deliver  us.’  ” . . xiii.  10. 

July  8.  Bishop  Cummins’  Deposition,  on  June  24,  published  in  full  in  the 
Philadelphia  Bulletin  of  July  8 . viii.  4. 

July  9.  Bishop  Gregg  (Ch.  St.)  of  Texas,  in  Convention  May  30,  said  :  “  Then 
the  unhappy  defection  of  a  Bishop  in  a  way  the  most  remarkable,  and  on  grounds 
utterly  weak  and  insufficient.  . .  .followed  by  some  who  had  wilfully  cut  themselves 
off,  and  more  recently  by  a  few  who  had  not  been  deposed  from  the  Church — &  fol¬ 
lowing,  a  miserable  folloidng — which  very  clearly  indicated  the  spirit  and  character 
of  the  movement  itself.”  [Now,  those  who  think  that  schism  may  be  cured  by 
separation,  will  find  good  reason  for  the  organization  of  the  R.  E.  C.  in  the  other 
remarks  of  Bishop  Gregg  (iii.  July  9)] . xiii.  10. 

July  15.  Bishop  Talbot  (Epis.)  in  Convention  of  Indiana,  said:  “  The  most  re¬ 
markable  event  in  connection  with  the  Church  in  this  country  during  the  past  year, 
if,  indeed,  it  be  not  the  most  remarkable  in  our  liistor}^,  is  the  abandonment  of  the 
communion  of  the  Church  by  one  of  its  Bishops,  and  the  attempt  of  that  unhappy 
and  misguided  man  to  set  up  and  to  head,  a  schismatical  body  in  a  land  whose 
Christianity  is  already  endangered  and  cursed  by  needless  divisions  among  the 
jnofessed  followers  of  Christ.  The  reasons  which  Bishop  Cummins  has  publicly 
given  for  this  act  of  manifest  treachery  to  vows  deliberately  taken,  and  which  were 
a  condition  precedent  to  his  admission  to  the  office  which  he  has  betrayed,  have 
been  so  ably  met  and  so  thoroughly  refuted  by  the  ablest  and  best  Bishops,  his 
brethren,  with  whom  up  to  the  hour  of  his  desertion  he  professed  to  be  in  entire 
sympathy,  as  to  need  no  consideration  here  and  now  [xiii.  18  to  22].  I  have  no  other 
feeling  than  one  of  pity  and  charity  for  him  who  has  so  wounded  the  Church  of  God 
and  wronged  his  own  soul.  But  I  cannot  allow  such  an  event  to  pass  without 
notice,  and  without  the  expression  of  my  deep  conviction,  that  if  even  everything 
alleged  in  his  letter  of  withdrawal  were  true,  and  the  reasons  he  gives  those  which 
really  governed  his  action,  they  afford  not  the  slightest  justification  for,  or  even 
palliation  of,  his  course.  If  the  dangers  he  professed  to  see  were  real  dangers,  and 
not  mere  phantom  of  his  own  diseased  imagination,  as  I  believe  they  were,  then 
manifestly  the  duty  of  a  brave  and  true  man  was  to  stand  by  the  flag  and  fight 
them.  To  do,  to  dare,  and  if  need  be  to  fight  for  what  he  professed  to  believe  the 
imperiled  truth  of  God.  Let  us  try  to  cover  his  faults  with  the  mantle  of  charity, 
and  leave  him  to  the  account  that  he  must  render  for  his  sins.” . xiii.  10. 

July  22.  The  H.  E.  C.  is  a  restoration . 

Aug.  5.  Bishop  Vail  of  Kansas  (Epis.;  see  Feb.  10,  1875),  said:  “  It  is  impos¬ 
sible  when  old  historic  schools  are  recognized  as  of  equal  rights  in  the  Church,  that 
either  should  be  willing  to  be  always  in  subjection  to  the  other,  and  compelled  to 
accept  its  partisan  overrulings.  Such  a  school,  if  it  cannot  find  an  honorable  and 
equal  home  in  the  Church  of  its  birth  and  of  its  life,  if  it  must  remain  an  outlaw 
and  a  slave,  a  mark  of  derision  and  a  perpetual  subject  of  suspicion  and  surveillance  f 
must  finally  see  that  there  is  but  one  alternative,  justifiable  only  in  the  last  and 
unavoidable  providential  necessity.  That  alternative  certainly  has  not  yet  come  to 
us,  nor  is  it  near  at  hand  ” . xiii.  5. 

Aug.  19.  Protestant  Episcopal  Conference  (Epis.)  correspondent  says :  “It 
has  been  finally  agreed  to  hold  a  general  conference  of  the  P.  E.  C.  in  this  city 


52 


CHAPTER  II. 


August  19,  1874. 

[N  ew  York].  . .  .It  is  proposed,  in  order  more  effectually  to  frustrate  the  new  move¬ 
ment,  that  the  High  and  Low  Churches  hereafter  act  in  greater  unity  with  each 
other  ” . . . x.  14. 

Aug.  19.  Church  and  State  (Epis.)  says:  “  Nothing  could  be  more  unwise  or 
miserably  abortive  than  the  Cummins  movement  ” . xiii.  10. 

Sept.  10.  Bishop  Clarkson  of  Nebraska  (Ch.  St.)  in  Convention  “referred  to 
the  defection  of  Bishop  Cummins  as  much  to  be  lamented,  but  credited  him  with 
having  acted  according  to  conscience  ” . . . xiii.  6. 

Oct.  22.  Rev.  E.  Harwood,  D.D.  (Ch.  St.)  says:  “The  condition  of  the 
Church  generally  is  not  satisfactory.  . .  .In  Illinois  and  Wisconsin. . .  .the  growth  of 
the  Church  has  been  impeded  by  vicious  ecclesiastical  principles,  to  say  nothing  of 
Episcopal  misrule  in  one  of  them. . .  .In  the  meanwhile,  the  Cummins  separatist 
movement,  under  the  name  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  hangs  fire  only  because  there  is  neither 
ecclesiastical  Churclimanship,  nor  learning,  nor  theological  ability  in  the  leaders. 
Certainly  the  outlook  is  serious.”  He  then  says  that  legislation  will  not  remedy 


the  difficulty . xiii.  10. 

Oct.  26  to  31.  General  Convention  of  the  P.  E.  C.  as  reported  verbatim  by 
the  Churchman,  has  the  following  references  to  the  R.  E.  C.,  viz.: 

III.  Cct.  26.  Inhibition  Immediate . viii,  5. 

III.  Oct.  27.  Mr.  Shattuck,  (to  force  others) . ii,  July  8,  Dis. 

III.  Oct.  29.  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  (leave  the  sinking  ship) . . xii,  56. 

III.  Oct.  29  Rev.  Dr.  Sullivan  (is  frightened) . xiii,  25. 

III.  Oct.  29.  Rev.  Dr.  Huntingdon,  (John  II.  Newman) . xii.  56. 

III.  Oct.  29.  Rev.  Dr.  Garrison,  (widest  liberty) . vii,  4. 

III.  Oct.  31.  Rev.  Dr.  Beach,  (go  if  you  desire) . xii,  56. 

III.  Oct.  31.  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  (don’t  uphold  Bishop  Cheney) . xii,  56. 

III.  Oct.  31.  Henry  Meigs,  (R.  E.  C.  and  its  Prayer-book) 

III.  Oct.  31.  Rev.  Dr.  Fulton  (not  the  old  Evangelicals) . xiii,  23. 

Nov.  11.  Goddard  of  St.  Andrews,  (xii,  56) . . iii. 

Nov.  11.  Church  and  State,  (R.  E.  C.  disappointed) . iii. 

Nov.  25.  Return  of  R.  E.  C.  to  P.  E.  C.  (xiv,  4) . iii. 

Nov.  25.  Rev.  "W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.  (Low  Church) . xii,  58,  iii. 


Nov.  30.  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  (Louisville  Courier)  in  the  full  report  of  his  ser¬ 
mon  on  the  opening  of  the  new  church  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  said  :  “  In  no  spirit 
of  hostility  to  those  with  whom  we  formerly  worshipped  and  took  counsel 
together,  or  to  any  one  who  may  differ  from  or  misunderstand  us,  but  in  obedience 
to  our  sense  of  duty  we  devote  it,”  etc . xiv,  6. 

Dec.  3.  Republic  Editorial.  “  Just  one  year  ago  the  organization  took  place 
. .  .  .The  old  Prayer  Book  was  revised.  The  word  ‘  Priest  ’. . .  .was  expunged  and 
the  word  ‘  Minister  ’  or  ‘  Presbyter  ’  substituted.  It  was  resolved  not  to  declare 
infants  regenerated  in. . .  .Baptism. . . .  Instead  of  offering  the  Absolution  standing, 
the  minister  was  to  kneel  and  offer  a  prayer,  and  the  phrase,  ‘  He  descended  into 
hell  ’  was  omitted  from  [the  text  of]  the  Apostles’  Creed  [but  may  be  used].  Such 
were  some  of  the  changes. . .  .because  it  was  urged  that  the  Prayer  Book  so 
reformed  might  be  used  by  any  body  of  Evangelical  Christians. ...  In  the  year. . . . 
considerable  progress  has  been  made  by  the  Reformers.  They  have  established 
themselves  at  a  number  of  points,  with  a  determination  and  earnestness  which 


CHAPTER  II. 


53 


December  3,  1874. 

leave  no  doubt  in  the  public  mind  as  to  tlie  i^ossibility  of  their  continuing . 

The  step  on  the  part  of  the  Kentucky  Prelate  was  bold  and  manly,  and  indicated 
a  strong  faith  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  principles  for  which  he  contended. 
The  progress  of  the  movement  since  he  led  off  has  been  encouraging  to  all  con¬ 
cerned  in  it. .. .  The  Reformed  Church  presents  itself  at  the  end  of  the  first  year 
with  what  may  be  regarded  as  a  formidable  front.” . ix,  12,  18. 

Dec.  16.  B.  A.  to  Church,  and  State  (Epis.)  “B.  A.  ”  says:  “Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins  and  the  P.  E.  C.” — Under  this  head,  the  leader  in  Church  and  State  of  Nov. 
18, 1874,  says  :  “  On  Sunday  evening  last.  Bishop  Cummins  made  a  severe  assault 
upon  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  We  do  not  exactly  understand  the  propri¬ 
ety  of  this.  No  attack  was  made  in  General  Convention  upon  Bishop  Cummins 
or  the  cause  he  represents.  The  reserve  in  this  respect  was  most  admirable.” 
xiii,  23. 

“  Now,  the  editor  has  himself  used  very  harsh  expressions  respecting  Bishop 
Cummins  and  the  R.  E.  C.  Also  in  the  Convention  it  was  denounced  as  a  miserable 
schism.  Several  Bishops  in  their  formal  addresses  have  made  personal  attacks 
upon  Bishop  Cummins  and  the  R.  E.  C.,  using  such  terms  as  misrepresentations , 
unchurchly,  ungodly ,  ungenerous ,  breach  of  ordination  vows,  schismatic,  perjured ,  etc., 
and  because  this  personal  abuse  was  not  frequently  repeated  in  General  Convention 
the  editor  says,  ‘  The  reserve  in  this  respect  was  admirable,’  and  charges  that 
‘  Bishop  Cummins  made  a  severe  assault  upon  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,’ 
when  the  only  assault  was  a  plain  statement  of  facts  which  the  editor  does  not 
deny.”  xiii,  10. 

Again  he  says  :  “  If  all  that  he  charges  against  the  Church  be  true,  we  wonder 
that  he  can  be  willing  to  exercise  the  office  of  a  Bishop  which  he  derives  only  from 
this  source.”  Now  “ Mutato  nomine  de  tefahula  narraiur”  The  Bishops  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  derive  their  Orders  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  so 
do  all  their  clergymen.”  xii,  25-27. 

Again  he  says:  “  We  do  not  see  why  those  who  have  relieved  their  consciences 
by  going  out  from  us,  need  to  feel  specially  charged  with  remedying  the  evils  they 
have  left  behind.”  (xiii.  10). 

This  signifies  that  the  Low  Church  clergy  and  laity  may  be  driven  out  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  by  High  Church  excesses,  and  be  robbed  of  their 
church  property  and  then  abused  for  leaving  ;  but  must  submit  quietly  to  all  this 
abuse,  and  not  show  by  facts  that  there  were  good  reasons  for  separation,  (xiii.  26). 

Agaid  he  says :  “  We  have  no  feelings  but  those  of  kindness  for  Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins.”  But  my  file  of  Church  and  State  shows  a  strange  exhibition  of  this  kind¬ 
ness.  So  does  this  editorial,  (xiii.  7  ;  xiii.  10). 

Again:  “We  trust  that  he  will  learn  that  it  is  very  questionable  taste  at  least 
to  hold  up  to  reproach  the  home  in  which  he  was  nurtured,  and  for  which  by  his 
act  of  desertion,  he  has  ceased  to  be  responsible.”  (xiii.  10). 

Now,  I  have  heard  addresses  by  Bishop  Cummins  in  New  York,  and  in  Chicago, 
Ill.,  and  in  St.  Johns,  Moncton,  and  Sussex,  New  Brunswick,  and  in  Toronto,  and 
Brantford,  Ontario,  and  the  whole  substance  was  to  show  the  facts  respecting  the 
doctrinal  views  of  the  ruling  majority  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  the 
difference  between  the  P.  E.  C.  and  the  R.  E.  C.  Those  facts  have  not  been  and 
cannot  be  disputed  by  the  editor.  For  the  plain  statement  of  these  facts,  without  a 


54 


CHAPTER  II. 


December  16,  1874. 

single  personal  attack,  tlie  editor  speaks  of  “  questionable  taste,”  applied  personally 
to  Bisliop  Cummins,  after  several  Bishops  have  “  piled  Peleon  on  Ossa”  in  the  ap¬ 
parent  effort  to  excel  in  personal  abuse,  (xiii.  10). 

In  conversation  with  a  non-Episcopal  clergyman,  I  expressed  my  surprise  that 
so  many  Bishops  had  been  so  much  excited  as  to  lose  their  balance,  and  forget  that 
they  ought  at  least  to  be  gentlemen.  He  answered  :  “  They  cannot  appreciate  the 
ridiculous  figures  they  cut  before  those  who  do  not  belong  to  their  own  sect.” 
(xii.  8). 

In  conclusion.  I  do  not  protest  against  such  remarks  as  here  made  by  the 
editor,  nor  against  any  of  the  abuse  that  has  been  uttered  by  the  Bishops  of  the  P. 
E.  C.  The  more  of  this  kind  the  better  for  the  R.  E.  C.  These  hostile  personalities 
have  been  educating  the  public  as  to  the  difference  between  the  P.  E.  C.  and  the 
R.  E.  C.  The  objections  raised  by  them  show  the  characteristics  of  the  P.  E.  C. 
more  distinctly  than  anything  that  we  could  have  said  to  prove  it,  and  to  prove  the 
necessity  of  leaving  them.  “  Whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn 
to  him  the  other  also.”  (xiii.  10;  xii,  25-59). 

Passaic,  N.  J.  B.  A. 

Dec.  23.  New  Prayer  Book  (Epis.)  Rev.  John  Greenfield,  M.  A.,  a  clergyman 
of  the  Church  of  England  of  the  Diocese  of  Huron,  conducted  the  services  of  the  R. 
E.  C.  in  Ottawa,  Ont.,  on  Dec.  13,  in  the  morning  and  evening.  “  After  the  close 
of  the  service,  Mr.  Greenfield  expressed  the  pleasure  it  had  afforded  him. ..  .and 
alluded  in  glowing  terms  to  the  great  wisdom  that  had  been  displayed  in  the  work 

of  revision.”  “A  Presbyterian  clergyman  of  some  eminence _ writes,  ‘  I  have 

very  much  enjoyed  an  occasional  reading  of  the  R.  E.  Prayer  Book;  I  consider  it 
really  excellent,  and  for  my  own  part  I  should  have  no  difficulty  about  embracing 
it  in  toto.’  ” . . xi,  3G 

Jan.  7,  1875.  Pacific  Churchman  (. Independent  says),  “  gently  and  elegantly 
says  of  the  two  Bishops  of  the  R.  E.  C. :  ‘  Cummins  has  brains  and  ambition,  too  ; 
Cheeney  (sic)  has  ignorance.  Here  are  all  the  elements  necessary  to  a  new  sect .... 
There  was  no  foundation  for  honesty  on  the  part  of  Cummins  or  Cheeney.  Both  had 
perjured  themselves.  They  were  both,  therefore,  ready  for  any  extremity.  The 
extremity  was — Cummins  an  apostate,  and  Cheeney  a  Bishop  by  the  imposition  of 
an  apostate’s  hands  ?” . xiii.  10. 

Jan.  13.  Dev.  E.  D.  Neill  (Epis.)  from  Minneapolis  Tribune  of  Dec.  31.  Lec¬ 
ture  as  to  differences,  in  which  he  treats  of  “Reaction  under  Elizabeth. . .  .Arch¬ 
bishop  Parker _ Revival  of  Apostolic  Succession.  ..  .Fuller’s  Good  Bishop.... 

Episcopacy  in  the  United  States. . .  .Occasion  of  reconstruction. . .  .Peaceful  Depar¬ 
ture _ Distinctive  principles _ Holy  Scriptures  infallible  guide _ Doctrinal 

belief _ Episcopacy  ancient  and  desirable - Ho  House  of  Bishops _ The 

Liturgy _ Liturgy  not  repressive.  ..  .Prayer-meetings  encouraged _ Preaching 

important _ Minister  not  a  priest.  ..  .Altar  discountenanced _ Episcopal  Grace 

rejected. .  .Baptismal  Regeneration  rejected - Saints’  days  abolished _ Believeis 

from  other  churches  admitted - Recognition  of  other  ministers _ Indebtedness 

to  other  churches” . xii.  12;  xi. 

Jan.  13.  Schism,  by  Rev.  Edward  Cridge,  M.A.  (Epis.)  Sermon  Nov.  8. 
“  Schism  is  contention  and  divisions  within  the  body,  as  in  the  Church  at  Corinth  ; 
not  separation  from  it,  as  in  the  case  of  Abraham  and  Lot,  and  as  St.  Paul  when  ho 


CHAPTER  II. 


55 


January  13,  1875. 

took  the  disciples  from  the  synagogue.  When  contentions  arise,  and  both  parties 
continue  in  the  same  body,  the  schism  is  perpetuated.  Where  unity  appears  to  he 
hopeless,  and  one  separates  from  the  other,  the  schism  is  ended.  There  is  within  our 
Church,  the  Church  of  England,  a  schism  which  is  incurable  except  by  one  of  two 
remedies  :  either  by  removing  by  common  consent  the  causes  of  contention — a  con¬ 
sent  which  I  think  all  must  admit  is  absolutely  unattainable;  or  by  a  separation. . . . 
And  now  this  word  ‘  schism’  is  the  cry  by  which  you  are  to  be  frightened  back.” 

xii.  7. 

Jan.  27.  Victoria,  B.  C.  (Epis.)  Angela  College  was  liberally  endowed  by  Miss 
Burdett  Coutts  and  put  under  the  charge  of  the  Bishop.  Most  if  not  all  the  lady 
teachers  have  joined  the  R.  E.  C.  The  Bishop  (Dec.  28)  notified  them  that  they 
must  leave  that  Church  or  leave  the  College.  They  resigned  in  a  body.  It  is 
now  proposed  to  start  a  R.  E.  C.  College  as  a  seminary  for  girls  and  boys. 

Jan.  30.  Hon.  Stewart  Xi.  Woodford  ( Church  Union )  at  the  anniversary 
meeting  in  Brooklyn,  on  Dec.  2,  describes  the  difference  between  the  P.  E.  C.  and 
the  R.  E.  C.  (II.  July  8,  1874.  Differences). 

Feb.  10.  Hev.  W.  H.  Johnson  (Epis.)  (III.  Feb.  25,  1875). 

Feb.  10.  Bishop  Vail  (Epis.)  in  the  Convention  of  Kansas,  Sept.  9,  1874,  said  : 

.  .  .  .“  To  the  Rt.  Rev.  George  David  Cummins,  D.D.,  late  assistant  Bishop  of 
Kentucky. — For  reasons  satisfactory  to  his  own  mind  and  conscience,  Dr.  Cummins 
abandoned  the  Communion  of  this  Church  in  the  course  of  the  last  autumn  and 
became  the  head  of  a  new  Communion  called  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 
However  much  for  one  I  deprecate  his  decision  and  dissent  from  his  convictions,  I 
yet  pray  that  God  overrule  what  has  been  done  to  His  supreme  glory,  and  to  the 
best  interest  of  His  Church  and  people.  In  him  and  in  those  associated  with  him 
is  an  element  of  great  power,  that  ought  not  to  be  lost  to  this  Church,  which  the 
Church  ought  to  retain  for  herself  and  for  Christ’s  work  within  her  pale  ;  and  much 
as  I  lament  the  mistaken  conclusions,  as  I  regard  them,  of  him  and  of  his  associ-' 
ates,  I  lament  far  more  that  lack  of  legislative  wisdom  and  that  sinful  defect  in  our 
ecclesiastical  statesmanship,  which  allows  such  men  to  go,  and  which  makes  no 
comprehensive  provision  to  retain  the  admitted  power  of  such  good  and  able 
men,  although  extremists,  for  our  own  work  within  our  own  Church.” . ;xiii.  6. 

Feb.  25.  Postal  Card,  post  marked  “  Milford,  Ct.,  Feb.  25 — To  the  Rev.  Mar¬ 
shall  B.  Smith,  Passaic,  New  Jersey. — Even  if  you  have  made  an  ass  of  yourself,  I 
see  no  necessity  of  your  telling  me  of  it  in  this  or  any  other  ‘  Open  Letter.’  I  ob¬ 
ject. — A.  D.  Miller,  Rector  of  St.  Peter’s  Church,  Milford,  Conn.” . xiii,  7. 

Feb.  25.  Postal  Card.  Post  mark  illegible  and  without  date  “  To  (Ex)  Rev. 
Marshall  B.  Smith,  Passaic,  N.  J . I  trust  you  will  repent  and  find  peace  in  be¬ 
lieving — the  only  way  to  find  it.  Yrs,  resp’ly  (Rev.)  T.  M  Tho.” . xiii,  7. 

March  4.  “  Stop  Agitating  ”  (So.  Ch.)  The  Standard  of  the  Gross  says*. 
“  We  do  wish  Bishop  Cummins  and  his  followers  would  stop  agitating.  If  they 
have  the  love  of  Christ  in  their  hearts,  and  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  let  them 
go  out  to  neglected  fields  and  proclaim  the  Gospel  and  build  up  their  society. 
But  this  waiting  at  the  doors  of  the  mother  Church,  which  they  have  denounced  as 
the  teacher  of  errors,  for  stragglers  to  come  out,  greeting  with  joy  every  discon¬ 
tented,  troubled  spirit,  this  is  very  small  work  for  a  church  [small  c.]  that 
parades  such  a  large  name,  and  proclaims  such  wonderful  reforms.” . xiii,  6. 


CHAPTER  II. 


56 

April  1,  1875. 

April  1.  Episcopal  Register  of  Philadelphia.  The  following  is  a  copy  of  a 
scrap  supposed  to  be  of  about  the  last  week  of  March  :  “  My  dear  editor :  In  exam¬ 
ining  a  copy  of  the  Reformed  Prayer  Book,  I  am  really  astounded,  well  nigh  to 
laughter  [!]  to  observe  that  the  candidate  for  Confirmation  is  only  asked  to  re¬ 
nounce  ‘  the  world  and  the  flesh,’  and  not  a  word  is  said  about  the  Devil.  Can  it 
be  that  this  omission  is  intentional  ?  ”  etc.  [This  paper  is  understood  to  be  the 
organ  of  the  Diocese  of  the  P.  E.  C.  in  Penn.  As  a  layman,  I  note  the  word 
“  laughter  ”  from  a  man  professing  to  be  a  Christian,  and  leave  to  the  clergy  the 
explanation  of  the  service.] 

April  7.  Bishop  M.  A.  DeWolfe  Howe  (Epis.)  fromReading  on  Feb.  19,  in 
answer  to  the  resignation  of  Rev.  J.  H.  Mac  El’  Rey  of  Feb.  16,  says :  “  Is  it  manly 
to  leave  this  unchanged  Church,  because  others  whom  you  think  unfaithful  to  her 
standards  have  crept  in  ?  And  will  you  like  them  to  whom  you  proppse  to  go, 
spend  most  of  your  time  in  abusing  and  pulling  down  the  Church  that  has  shel¬ 
tered  you  thus  far  ?  Have  you  thought  of  the  sin  of  *  schism  ’  from  which  you  have 
been  praying  God  to  deliver  you  ;  what  it  is  ?  And  what  its  consequence  ? 
I  do  not  argue.  I  only  put  questions  which  I  fear  you  have  not  considered.  ” 

xx.  4;  xiii,  27 


CHAPTER  III 


PAN-ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 


Press  Reports  of  Actions  and  Opinions  of  the  different  parties  in  the 
P.  E.  C.  and  the  Ch.  Eng.,  quoting  as  “Low”  the  opinions  of  the  u  Old 
Evangelicals  who  carried  the  Evangelical  banner  so  nobly  ”  in  the  P.  E.  C. 
(hi.  Oct.  31)  and  have  left  that  Church  to  carry  the  same  banner  in  the 
R.  E.  C.  Indexed  in  Chapter  I.,  and  in  some  cases ,  analyzed  in  Chapters 
IY.  to  XV.,  as  indicated  at  the  conclusion  of  each  extract  thus  quoted. 
For  the  names  and  characteristics  of  the  newspapers  quoted ,  and  for  the 
mode  of  quoting ,  and  for  R.  E.  C.,  P.  E.  C .,  Ch.  Eng.,  Pan- Anglican, 
see  Preface. 

November  5,  1873. 

Nov.  5.  Church  and  State  says  of  Bishop  Potter’s  letter  objecting  to  the  Dean 
of  Canterbury  joining  in  this  communion.  “. . .  .We  are  opposed  on  grounds  of  ex¬ 
pediency  to  the  joint  communion  which  has  given  rise  to  this  controversy. . .  .If  there 
was  no  violation  of  law,  then  the  discourtesy  must  have  consisted  in  doing  a  per¬ 
fectly  lawful  thing,  and  one. .  .entirely  consistent  with  the  views  of  a  legitimate 
school  in  the  Church,  but  not  in  accordance  with  the  opinions  of  the  Bishop  of  New 
York. . .  The  Bishop  of  New  York,  it  would  seem  from  his  letter,  does  not  approve 
of  the  Evangelical  Alliance.” . v.  8. 

Nov.  5.  Bishop  Potter  (Ch.  St.)  The  Bishop  in  his  letter  to  the  Evening  Post 

of  Nov.  3,  says  :  “ _ As  the  object  of  Bishop  Tozer  in  sending  to  the  Archbishop  of 

Canterbury  a  copy  of  the  letter,  which  he  had  the  considerate  kindness  and  manli¬ 
ness  to  send  to  me. .  .Bishop  Tozer  felt,  and  I  think  felt  truly,  that  his  own  branch 
of  the  Church  had  been  misrepresented  and  compromised  by  an  act  of  irregularity 
and  discourtesy  in  one  of  the  dioceses  of  a  sister  Church.  He  felt,  as  I  should  have 
felt,  had  I  been  on  a  visit  in  England  and  found  an  American  clergyman  there  act¬ 
ing  in  a  way  to  encourage  irregularity  and  disorder. .  .As  to  Dean  Alford  at  Berlin 
...the  eccentricities  of  individuals. .  .are  of  no  force  to  impair  the  authority  of 
principles  and  laws  which  are  as  old  as  the  Christian  Church,  Avliich  are  divine 
. . . .”  [And  as  to  Bishop  Tozer’s]  “  manly  letter — a  letter  which  it  is  well-known, 
found  its  way  in  print,  not  by  design  but  by  accident.”  [That  is,  a  copy  of  it  was 
supposed  to  have  dropped  out  of  his  pocket  and  been  picked  up  in  the  street  by  a 
reporter  as,  I  think,  was  the  statement] . v.  3  ;  xii. 

Nov.  10.  Low  Church.  Bishop  Cummins’  resignation . vii.  1. 

Nov.  10.  Low  Church.  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith’s  resignation . vii.  2. 

Nov.  12.  Low  Church  Authorities  (Ch.  St.)  In  continuing  the  discussion  of 
the  Joint  Communion,  Church  and  State  quotes  the  following :  “  Keble - in  speak- 

(57) 


58 


CHAPTER  III. 


November  12,  1873. 

ing  of  Whitgift,  Cooper,  and  others — ‘  It  is  enough  with  them  to  show  that  the 
government  by  Archbishops  and  Bishops  is  ancient  and  allowable ;  they  never 
venture  to  urgo  its  exclusive  claim,  or  to  connect  the  succession  with  the 
validity  of  Holy  Sacraments.’  In  the  ‘Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,’  issued 
by  the  Bishops  and  clergy  in  1573,  it  is  said — ‘  The  truth  is  that  in  the  New 
Testament  there  is  no  mention  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  of  orders,  but  only  of 
deacons  and  ministers,  of  priests  or  bishops.’  Dr.  Pelkington,  Bishop  of  Durham, 
says — ‘  The  privileges  and  superiorities  which  Bishops  have  above  other  miiiisters, 
are  rather  granted  by  men,  for  maintaining  better  order  and  quietness  in  common¬ 
wealths,  than  commanded  by  Cod  in  His  word.’  Archbishop  Whitgift  says :  ‘That  any 
one  kind  of  government  is  so  necessary,  that  without  it  the  Church  cannot  be  saved, 
or  that  it  may  not  be  altered  into  some  other  kind,  thought  to  be  more  expedient, 
I  utterly  deny;  and  the  reasons  that  move  me  thereto  are  these:  The  first  is  be¬ 
cause  I  find  no  one  certain  and  perfect  kind  of  government  prescribed  or  commanded 
in  the  Scriptures,  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  Secondly,  because  the  essential  notes 
of  the  Church,  be  these  only,  the  true  preaching  of  the  Word  and  the  right  ad- 
mininistration  of  the  Sacraments.’  Hooker  says  :  ‘  There  may  be  sometimes  very 
just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow  ordination  made  without  a  Bishop.’  Lord  Bacon 
was  a  layman,  but  he  is  an  important  witness  as  to  the  prevalent  opinion  in  his 
time.  He  says :  ‘  Some  indiscreet  persons  have  been  bold,  in  open  preaching,  to 
use  dishonorable  and  derogatory  speech  and  censure  of  the  Churches  abroad  ;  and 
that  so  far  as  some  of  our  men,  as  I  have  heard,  ordained  in  foreign  parts,  have  been 
pronounced  to  be  no  lawful  ministers.’  Bishop  Andrews  says:  ‘Though  our 
goverment  be  of  divine  right,  it  follows  not  either  that  there  is  no  salvation,  or  that 
a  Church  cannot  stand  without  it.  He  must  needs  be  stone-blind  that  sees  not 
Churches  standing  without  it.’  Archbishop  Bramhall  says :  ‘  Many  Protestant 
Churches  lived  under  kings  and  Bishops  of  another  communion  ;  others  had  par¬ 
ticular  reasons  why  they  could  not  continue  or  introduce  Bishops.’  ‘  I  know  that  there 
is  a  great  difference  between  a  valid  and  regular  ordination.’  Archbishop  Bancroft, 
when  it  was  proposed  that  certain  candidates  for  the  Scotch  Episcopate  should  first 
be  ordained  Presbyters,  as  not  having  been  ordained  by  a  Bishop,  replied  :  ‘  That 
thereof  there  was  no  necessity,  seeing  where  Bishops  could  not  be  had,  the  ordina¬ 
tion  given  by  presbyters  must  be  considered  lawful.’  Bishop  Hall  says  :  ‘  Blessed- 
be  God,  there  is  no  essential  difference  betwixt  the  Church  of  England  and  her 
sisters  of  the  Reformation.’  ‘  The  only  difference  is  in  the  form  of  outward  ad¬ 
ministration,  wherein  also  we  are  so  far  agreed,  as  that  we  all  profess  this  form,  not 
to  be  essential  to  the  being  of  a  Church.’. ..  .Bishop  Tomline  says:  ‘I  readily 
acknowledge  that  there  is  no  precept  in  the  New  Testament  which  commands  that 
every  Church  should  be  governed  by  Bishops.’  Dean,  afterwards  Bishop  Cosin, 
says :  ‘  I  do  not  see  but  that  both  you  and  others  may  (either  in  case  of  necessity, 
when  you  cannot  have  the  Sacrament  among  yourselves,  or  in  regard  to  declaring 
your  unity  in  professing  the  same  religion  which  you  and  they  do)  go  otherwliiles 
to  communicate  reverently  with  them  of  the  French  Church.’  [And  part  of  the 
crypt  of  Canterbury  Cathedral  is  still  in  possession  of  the  French  Church.— B.  A.] 
Archbishop  Usher  says  :  ‘  I  do  protest  that  with  like  affection  I  should  receive  the 
blessed  sacraments  at  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  ministers,  if  I  were  in  Holland,  as  I 
should  at  the  hands  of  the  French  ministers,  if  I  were  in  Charenton.’  This  evi- 


CHAPTER  III. 


59 


November  12,  1873, 

dence  might  be  indefinitely  extended,  but  it  is  certainly  sufficient  to  prove  that  it 
is  allowable  in  the  Church  of  England  to  hold  the  possible  validity  of  other  than 
Episcopal  orders. . .  .It  is  time  that  the  cool  assumption  of  those  who  hold  exclusive 
views  of  Episcopacy  to  be  the  only  true  representatives  of  the  Church,  were 
rebuked.” . . . . . . xi. 

Nov.  27.  Low  Church.  Resolutions  (Obs.)  quotes  from  the  Chicago  Evening 
Journal  of  Nov.  24,  the  resolutions  of  the  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Christ 
Church,  Chicago,  who  had  refused  to  be  driven  out  of  the  P.  E.  C.  by  the  action  of 
Bishop  Whitehouse,  viz.:  “Resolved,  That  this  Vestry  have  learned  with  profound 
sensibility  of  the  noble  stand  for  Protestant  and  Evangelical  truth,  which  has  been 
recently  taken  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  George  D.  Cummins,  D.D.,  in  his  withdrawal  from 
the  exercise  of  the  office  of  assistant  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky,  rather 
than  sanction  by  official  relations  a  Ritualistic  worship  and  the  preaching  of  a  false 
Gospel.  Resolved,  That  we  recognize  in  this  action  of  Bishop  Cummins  the  re¬ 
sult  of  a  deep  conviction,  shared  by  ourselves  and  by  a  large  number  of  Protestant 
laity  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  that  the  only  adequate  remedy  for  the  Romish  ten¬ 
dencies  now  pervading  that  Church,  is  to  be  found  in  a  thorough  and  Scriptural 
revision  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Resolved,  That  we  feel  our  deepest  grat¬ 
itude  is  due  to  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  that  He  has  led  one  of  our  Bishops  to 
shrink  from  no  sacrifice  for  the  inaintainance  of  a  pure  Gospel,  and  that  while 
giving  all  the  glory  of  this  following  the  footsteps  of  the  great  English  Reformers 
to  Him  who  inspired  it,  we  pledge  to  Bishop  Cummins  our  prayers,  our  sympathy, 
and  all  practical  co-operation  in  the  effort  to  unite  an  Evangelical  pulpit  with  a 
Scriptural  liturgy,  and  with  a  moderate  Episcopacy. — Henry  C.  Smith,  Clerk  pro 
tem.” . xiii,  13;  xi,  14,  15. 

Dec.  4.  Exclusiveness  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (Ch.  Jo.)  Editor  says  :  “  Does  the  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  separate  herself  from  Protestant  Christendom  on  a  notion,  on  a  mere 
private  and  unimportant  opinion  ?  There  is  positively  nothing  else  that  divides 
here  to  day  from  the  great  bulk  of  Protestanism.  Does  she  rend  the  body  of  Christ 
for  a  whim  ?  Is  she  a  sect  with  a  weakness  for  Bishops  ?  If  this  be  her  position, 
we  for  one  hold  that  she  is  the  meanest  sect  we  know  of.  . . .  The  most  venerable, 
learned,  and  godly  Presbyterian  clergyman,  for  instance,  coming  to  her,  she 
receives,  and  makes  an  humble  layman  of  before  he  can  even  be  a  Deacon. ...  It 
may  be  a  tolerable  opinion  in  the  Church,  that  the  Apostolic  Succession  is  not 
necessary  to  a  valid  ministry.  It  is  an  opinion,  however,  which  the  Church  abso¬ 
lutely  forbids  every  parish,  every  convention,  every  Deacon,  Priest,  or  Bishop,  from 
acting  on.’’  [This  is  Close  Communion.] . . xii.  56,  58. 

Dec.  4.  Parties.  (Trib.)  “  The  new  movement  started  by  Bishop  Cummins  has 
been  prepared  for  a  long  time  in  advance. ...  Its  remote  causes  have  been  in  exist¬ 
ence  for  years.  . . .  The  Ritualistic  controversy. . .  .lias  of  late  been  gathering  fresh 
forces” .  . xii.  56;  xiii.  22. 

Dec.  13.  Church  of  England.  (Trib)  Professor  Geo.  P.  Fisher,  of  Yale 
College,  show's  that  Presbyterian  ministers  were  formerly  admitted  to  livings  in  the 
Church  of  England . . . . .  . xii.  24. 

Jan.  1,  1874.  Ritualism  in  England  (Obs.)  says  that  a  paper  circulated  in  an 
English  church  directs,  “  If  any  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  remains  on  the  altar  during 
the  singing  of  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis,  the  faithful  bow  reverently  at  the  words,  ‘  We 


60 


CHAPTER  III. 


January  1,  1874. 

■worship  Thee/  and  that  (Ch.  St.)  says  ‘  there  is  most  imminent  peril  to  tlie  peace 
and  unity  of  the  Church  if  it  is  not  suppressed.” 

Jan.  1.  Ritualism  in  Penn.  (Obs.)  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher  stated  that 
Bishop  Stevens  of  Penn,  had  ordered  one  of  his  clergy  to  give  up  six  various  prac¬ 
tices  in  his  Church,  known  as  Ritualistic,  but  he  refuses. 

Jan.  1.  Dr.  De  Koven  (Obs.)  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher  says  that  “Dr.  De 
Koven,  Warden  of  Racine  College,  requires  the  students  to  come  to  confession,. . . . 
and  travels  toNashota  to  act  as  Confessor  to  the  students  there  ;  that  Bishop  Clark 
of  Rhode  Island  stated. . .  .that  Dr.  De  Koven  came  to  his  diocese  for  the  same  pur¬ 
pose.’’ 

Jan.  1.  High — in  England.  (Obs.)  "The  Church  Herald  (English),  says:  “We 
deeply  regret  to  observe  that - the  Queen - partakes  the - so-called  ‘  Com¬ 
munion  ’  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterians.” . . xii. 

Jan.  12.  Dow  Church  (pamphlet).  Rev.  James  A.  Latane  to  Bishop  Johns  of 
Virginia,  withdrawing  from  the  P.  E.  C.,  date  Jan.  12,  1874,  in  pamphlet  form  (pp. 
19),  printed  for  the  R.  E.  C. 

He  gives  his  reasons  :  “  I.  The  unhappy  divisions  into  what  are  known  as  the 
High  Church  and  Low  Church  parties. . .  .II.  The  countenance  apparently  given  by 
certain  expressions  in  the  Prayer  Book  to  those  ‘  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines 

contrary  to  God’s  word/  out  of  which  the  divisions  in  the  Church  has  grown _ III. 

The  absolute  impossibility  of  getting  rid  of  these  objectionable  expressions  in  the 
services  of  the  Prayer  Book. ..  .IV.  The  attitude  in  which  the  Episcopal  Church 
stands  in  the  present  day  toother  Protestant  Churches.  ...This  was.  ...the  real  ques¬ 
tion  involved  in  Bishop  Cummins’  communion  act  at  the  recent  meeting  of  the 
Evangelical  Alliance. . .  .And  for  taking  his  place  at  that  table  Bishop  Cummins  was 
denounced  in  unmeasured  terms,  was  accused  of  having  violated  the  Constitution  and 
Canons  of  the  Church,  and  was  charged  with  having  been  unfaithful  to  the  most 
solemn  vows  a  human  being  can  assume. . .  .There  was,  so  far  as  I  know,  but  one 
paper  in  the  entire  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  which  spoke  out  in  fearless  and 
honest  and  hearty  terms  in  defense  of  him  and  in  justification  of  his  act  [Episco- 

palian  ?] . . .  .To  fight  the  battle  in  the  Church  ! - In  the  Church  the  tattle  has 

teen  fought,  and  in  the  Church  the  tattle  has  teen  lost. . .  .The  R.  E.  C . meets 

entirely  my  views  of  Scriptural  truth. . .  .The  Diocese  of  Virginia. . .  .as  yet. . .  .has 
been  able  to  keep  back  from  her  own  borders  the  rising  tide  of  Romish  error. . .  .Let 
us  end  this  discord  in  the  Church — let  us  separate  from  those  with  whom  we  can¬ 
not  dwell  in  peace. . .  .The  movement  of  Bishop  Cummins  is  but  a  new  phase  of  an 
old  question.  However  the  Church  papers  may  ‘  pooh-pooh  ’  it  and  affect  to  despise 
it,  the  authorities  of  the  Church  have  shown,  by  their  hasty  action  in  the  matter, 
how  differently  they  think  and  feel  about  it  ” . xi.  26. 

Jan.  21.  Ritualism.  in  New  York  (Epis.)  at  St.  Albans  and  St.  Mary  the  Vir¬ 
gin,  described  by  William  Little  of  Morrisania,  N.  Y.  . . xii.  58- 

Jan.  29.  Low.  (Ch.  St.)  says  of  Rev.  Jas.  A.  Latane  (Jan.  12):  “His  letter _ 

takes  a  despairing  view  of  the  tendencies  of  the  Church _ We  have  read  this  let¬ 

ter  with  profound  sadness. . .  .It  is  generous  and  tender  in  spirit. . .  .But  is  there  any 


need  why  we  should  lose  such  men?  ” . xi.  27 

Jan.  29.  Succession  (Ch.  St.)  says  R.  E.  C.  has  it . ii- 


Jan.  29.  Scotch  Episcopal  Church  (Ch.  St.)  The  London  Record  ridicules 


CHAPTER  III. 


61 


January  29,  1874. 

the  action  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  obtaining  from  the  Scotch  Episcopal 
Church  the  consecration  of  the  Bishop  Designate  for  Madagascar.  The  Scotch 
Bishops  refer  in  their  “  minute”  agreeing  to  this  act,  to  the  “  precedent  afforded  by 
the  analogous  case  of  the  consecration  of  Bishop  Seabury  in  1784,”  while  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Canterbury,  in  his  letter  to  the  Primus,  founds  his  request  upon  this 
“kindly  foundation  of  the  American  Church” . xi.  43. 

Feb.  4.  Joint  Communion  (Epis.)  The  Dean  of  Canterbury,  in  Exeter  Hall, 
defended  his  action  in  taking  part  with  non-Episcopalians. 

III.  Oct.  1,  1874,  Bp.  Tozer;  Oct.  12,  Dr.  Mead;  v.  2,  3. 

Feb.  4.  Ritualism  in  Hew  York  (Epis.)  Rev  Dr.  C.  W.  Andrews  of  Virginia, 
says:  “  New  York  has  been  the  chief  seat  of  this  great  trouble  and  plague  of  our 
Church. . .  .In  1809  a  large  number  of  presbyters  and  laity  appealed  to  eleven  of  our 
Bishops. ..  .This  the  eleven  Bishops  brought  to  the  attention  of  their  brethren. 
. . .  .Bishop  Potter  promptly  replied  in  a  pamphlet,  written  in  a  most  imperious  and 
disrespectful  tone,  reflecting  upon  them  severely  for  paying  any  attention  to  men  ‘  of 
tender  consciences.’  He  says :  ‘  The  eccentricities  of  half  a  dozen  individuals,  a  few 
unguarded  expressions,  or  what  is  more  common,  expressions  taken  out  of  their 
proper  connection  and  so  perverted  ;  certain  doings  which  by  a  plausible  but  unfair 
representation  can  be  made  to  bear  the  appearance  of  grievous  error  ;  these  are  the 
things  which  are  constantly  seized  upon  to  make  out  a  charge,  which,  as  I  have 
said,  is  all  but  wholly  false.’  As  to  the  authors  of  the  American  Prayer  Book,  he 
censures  them  for  giving  an  alternate  in  the  Office  to  the  form  *  Receive  the 

Holy  Ghost - Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,’  etc.  ‘The  omission  made  in  the 

Visitation  of  the  Sick  is  much  to  be  regretted  ’. . .  .as  follows. . . .‘  I  absolve  thee 
from  all  thy  sins.’  What  he  has  tolerated  in  the  case  of  St.  Albans  and  others,  in¬ 
cluding  the  notorious  Bradley,  is  well  known,  though  prompt  action  was  taken  on 
the  other  side,  and  public  discipline  administered  with  great  pomp. . .  .St.  Mary  the 
Virgin.  . .  .an  altar. . .  .Bishop  Potter  went  and  consecrated. . .  .These  ‘  altars’  are 
being  multiplied  in  New  York,  erected  after  the  pattern  of  those  pulled  down  at  the 
Reformation.” . xii.  58. 

Feb.  18.  Ritualist  (Epis.)  Dr.  De  Koven  in  the  Convention  of  Wisconsin  re¬ 
ceived  for  Bishop  thirty-five  votes  and  Dr.  Hoffman  thirty-three  by  the  clergy. 
But  the  laity  voted  fifteen  for  Dr.  D.  and  thirty-one  for  Dr.  H.  From  the  reports 
in  the  secular  papers,  it  appears  that  there  was  great  uproar  in  the  Convention  and 
they  adjourned  without  electing  a  Bishop. 

Feb.  5,  1875,  De  K;  Feb.  6,  Coleman;  xii.  58. 

Feb.  25.  Parties  (Epis.)  Church  Journal  says  :  “The  great  mass  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Church,  clerical  and  lay,  are  ‘High’  Churchmen....  The  ‘Low’ 
Churchmen,  who  were  at  one  time  the  only  other  division  known,  are  not  numer¬ 
ous,  and  they  are  certainly  not  increasing.  The  ‘  Broad  ’  Churchmen,  whatever 
that  title  may  mean,  are  absolutely  as  a  party  in  the  American  Church,  without 
place  or  influence....  In  no  General  Convention  for  years  has  there  been  any 
possibility  of  opposing  what  ‘  High  ’  Churchmen  deemed  desirable....  The  old- 
fashioned  Evangelical  men,  swamped  into  a  hopeless  and  helpless  minority,  stand 
*  looking  on,  asking  what  we  propose  to  do  about  it.” . xii.  56,  58. 

Feb.  25.  Low  Church.  (Epis.)  Rev.  W.  McGuire,  withdrawing  from  the  P.  E. 
C.  to  join  the  R.  E.  C.,  writes  to  Bishop  Wbittingham In  my  view - what- 


62 


CHAPTER  III. 


February  25,  1874. 

ever  t!ie  alleged  soundness  of  its  doctrinal  formularies  may  be,  is  essentially,  increas¬ 
ingly,  and  hopelessly  a  Romanizing  position. . . .  Protestant  and  Romisli  Sacra- 
mentarianism  cannot  now  live  and  breathe  together. . . .  With  a  deep  sense  of  the 
solemnity  of  the  step  I  am  now  taking  in  the  severance  from  the  Church  of  my 
fathers,”  etc.  [His  father  was  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  McGuire  of  Virginia.]  See  ii. 
March  14,  1874,  Bishop  Whittingham,  tor  answer . xi.  27. 

March  4.  Ritualism  in  Maryland.  (Epis.)  Layman  says  that  in  Maryland  “  a 
score  or  more  of  clergymen  have  found  the  Sacrament  of  Penance  to  prove  of  ines¬ 
timable  benefit .  The  P.  E.  C.  does  or  does  not  allow  confession  to  a  priest  who 

has  authority  to  pronounce  absolution ....  If  Sacramental  Confession  is  not  taught, 
if  priest  does  not  mean  priest,  and  altar  does  not  mean  altar;  in  the  name  of 
common  sense,  let  us  have  a  Prayer  Book  we  can  read,  and  comprehend.” 

March  4.  High  and  Low,  (Epis.)  seven  differences. 

March  4.  Hopeless  (Epis.)  Maryland,  “  LI  ”  says :  “  So  far  as  the  Bishop’s  let¬ 
ter  is  a  reply  to  the  appeal  of  Mr.  Latane  to  the  Diocese  of  Virginia,  it  shows  how 
hopeless  that  appeal  is.”  [That  Virginia  should  secede.] . iii.  Jan.  15,  Low. 

March  11.  Low  (Epis.)  Rev.  J.  D.  Wilson,  on  leaving  Pittsburgh  for  Peoria, 
addressed  his  congregation.  He  shows  that  the  Church  of  England  in  former 
days  was  in  full  communion  with  the  Continental  Protestants.  So  in  early  days 
the  P.  E.  C.  recognized  other  Protestant  Churches.  But  exclusiveness  and  Priest¬ 
hood  now  dominate. . . .  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  a  mine  of  precious  truth. 
I  cannot  use  it,  for  the  galleries  are  filled  with  noxious  gases,” . xi.  27. 

March  18.  Ritualistic  Books  (Epis.)  in  use  as  stated  in  the  Ottawa  Times. 

xii.  58. 

March  25.  Low.  (Epis.)  “  Quirist  ’’  says :  “  But  supposing  Bishop  Cummins’ 
action  has  not  met  our  views  in  every  respect,  or  that  we  should  be  unwilling  to 
follow  the  man  for  one  reason  or  another  ;  what  are  we  to  do  with  the  Declaration 
with  which  he  accompanies  his  action?  These  principles  are  not  his  [exclusively] 
but  in  every  sense  such  as  the  leaders  in  our  party  have  spent  their  lives  in  advo¬ 
cating.” . xi.  1  ;  xii.  58. 

March  25.  Parties  (Epis.)  “  Is  there  not  a  cause  ?”  by  “  M.”  “  Why,  men  and 
brethren,  what  have  you  been  saying  and  doing  for  the  last  ten  years  ?  Have  you 
not  fretted  and  frowned  and  threatened  ?  Have  you  not  refused  to  co-operate  on  the 
plea  of  conscience  with  High  Churchmen  when  they  were  in  no  wise  different  from 
what  they  are  to-day?  What  have  you  been  making  such  a  noise  about?. ...  In 
the  ecclesiastical  polities  of  the  P.  E.  C.  the  goose  that  lays  down  the  golden  egg 
is  the  Low  Church  party.  . . .  What  they  [High  Church]  propose,  is  to  keep  their 
hands  upon  this  silly  goose,  poke  round  in  its  nest  every  day  for  a  newT  egg,  and  if 
ever  she  stops  laying,  then  pick  her  to  the  skin  and  divide  her  corpus  among  ‘  the 
children  of  the  Church.’ _ The  Declaration  settled  nothing,  and  by  High  Church¬ 

men  was  not  meant  to  settle  anything.  It  was  another  tub  thrown  to  the  whale.” 

xi.  1  ;  xii,  51. 

.  April  8.  Parties.  (Epis.)  A  “  Presbyter  of  Maryland  ’’  says :  “  Bishop  Potter 

has  compared  it  [R.  E.  C.]  to  a  ‘  mosquito  bite.’. . . .  During  the  last  fifteen  years  the 
Low  Church  party  has  lost. . .  .Maine,  Massachusetts. . .  .a  large  part  of  Pennsylva¬ 
nia _ about  half  of  Ohio  is  ready  to  follow  ;  South  Carolina. . .  Georgia. . .  .Ten¬ 

nessee  and  Louisiana....  In  many  of  the  dioceses  things  are  being  so  arranged 


CHAPTER  III. 


63 


April  8,  1874. 

that  Low  Churchmen  will  soon  find  themselves  like  the  dove  out  of  the  Ark. . . . 
This  diocese  by  a  late  Canon  has  been  divided  into  Convocations,  each  of  which  is 
under  the  charge  of  a  D'ean,  whose  appointment  is  under  the  control  of  the  Bishop. 
Under  the  Bishop  he  manages  his  Convocation. ...  In  almost  every  diocese  it  is 
being  made  the  interest  of  the  clergy  to  become  ‘  Moderate  Churchmen.’. . . .  They 
propose  to  the  Low  Churchmen  to  do  the  disbanding,  while  they  do  the  publishing 

and  educating  and  sending  out  missionaries .  You  will  be  obliged  soon, 

if  you  wish  to  find  Low  Churchmen,  to  go  to  the  graveyard  or  to  the  R.  E.  C.” 

xii,  56. 

May  7.  Parties  (Cli.  St.)  “  In  the  Irish  Church  Synod. . .  .it  was  proposed  to 
omit  the  answer  to  the  second  question  [in  the  Catechism]  the  words  ‘  whereby  I 
was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  a  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  ;’.  . .  .six  to  one  of  the  clergy  voted  against  it,  while  a  large  majority  of  the 

laity  voted  in  favor  of  it . It  is  believed. . .  .that  the  necessity  for  a  ‘  two-tliird 

vote  ’  of  both  orders  renders  it  very  improbable  that  revision  will  be  much  promoted 
this  year.” . xii.  58. 

May  20.  Candidates  Degenerating  (Trib.)  Bishop  Littlejohn  in  Convention 
of  Long  Island,  said:  “  The  demand  for  recruits  to  the  Church  far  exceeds  the  sup¬ 
ply,  and  this  being  so,  she  more  than  winks  at  a  choice  of  candidates.  Looking 
over  the  past  twenty  years,  it  is  plain  to  see  that  nothing  but  a  marked  physical  or 
mental  debility  has  debarred  any  one  from  becoming  a  candidate  for  Holy  Orders.’’ 

xii.  45 . 

June  3.  Low  (So.  Cli.)  The  editor  says  the  Virginia  Convention  of  May  20, 
had  these  results  :  1,  The  election  of  a  decidedly  Low  Church  anti-ritualistic  dele¬ 
gation  to  the  General  Convention.  2,  The  emphatic  rejection  of  any  idea  of  separa¬ 
tion  from  the  P.  E.  C.  3,  The  clear  and  warmly  expressed  views  of  the 
Bishop  against  any  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book . iii.  Jan.  12,  1874,  Low. 

June  4.  Prayer  Book  changes  (Ch.  St.)  Editor  says :  “  What  Dr.  Andrews 
says  about  ‘  putting  certain  ambiguous  expressions  in  the  Prayer  Book  into  accord 
with  the  judicially  determined  sense  of  the  book  as  a  whole,’ is  worth  seriously 
looking  into.  . .  .It  is  notorious  that  the  Prayer  Book  was  framed  on  a  basis  of  com¬ 
promises  ;  that  amid  the  diversity  of  opinion  prevailing,  the  idea  was  to  strike  a 
sort  of  middle  course  between  opposing  parties. . .  .When  a  Churchman  wishes  to 
impress  others  with  the  fact  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  what  the  Roman  lawyers 
called  a  ‘  Corporation  sole,’  he  speaks  of  the  Church  and  other  ‘Christian  bodies.’ 
...  .It  is  one  of  those  petty,  designed,  and  yet  innocent  phrases  which  would  only 
excite  a  smile  did  it  not  excite  that  pity  which,  Coleridge  says,  is  allied  to  con¬ 
tempt.” . xii.  12-24. 

June  4.  Present  crisis  (Ch.  St.)  Tribune  editorial,  in  reviewing  the  action  of 
the  Diocesan  Conventions,  says  :  “  The  Ritualistic  controversy  is  not  a  new  one  to 
the  P.  E.  C.,  but  the  present  crisis  has  new  elements  of  danger,  which  seems  to  be 
fully  realized  by  the  leaders  of  both  contending  parties.  Not  the  least  of  these 
dangers  is  found  in  the  fact  that  a  new  Church,  under  the  leadership  of  one  who 
received  his  ministry  and  his  bishopric  in  the  old  Church  stands  with  wide-open 
doors  to  receive  the  malcontents.  Under  these  circumstances  the  religious  world 
will  look  forward  with  great  interest  to  the  next  triennial  General  Convention  of 
the  P.  E.  C.,  which  will  meet  in  this  city  a  few  months  hence.  Under  its  action 


64 


CHAPTER  III. 


June  4,  1874. 

largely  depends,  not  only  tlie  future  of  the  Cliurcli  as  a  body,  but  the  individual 
denominational  relations  of  thousands  of  earnest  Christians  in  all  parts  of  the 

United  States.” . xi.  1. 

• _ 

June  10.  High  and  Low  (Epis.)  Martin  Farquliar  Tupper,  in  a  letter  to  the 
Record,  notes  several  differences . . . xii.  58. 

June  II.  Liberty  of  Laymen  (Ch.  St.)  thinks  this  greater  in  the  P.  E.  C. 
than  in  any  other  Church,  including  the  R.  E.  C.  [This  is  true  in  so  far  that  the 
R.  E.  C.  requires  the  Wardens  to  be  communicants  and  the  Vestrymen  to  be  of  un¬ 
exceptionable  moral  character.  But  in  other  respects  see  Oct.  13,  Arbitrary.] 

xi.  43. 

June  11.  Ritualism  (Ch.  St.)  The  Church  Journal  says:  “It  is  now  much 
more  clearly  and  generally  understood,  that  the  question  is  not  one  of  cassocks, 
chasubles,  cottas,  or  processionals ;  but  of  doctrine,  and  that  doctrine  goes  to  the 
very  root  of  things. . .  .To  change  the  Prayer  Book,  is  simply  out  of  the  question.” 

xii.  56. 

J line  11.  Compromise  (Ch.  St.)  Dr.  Magee,  in  Parliament,  said :  “  The  word 
compromise  is  written  all  over  the  face  of  the  Anglican  Prayer  Book. . .  .If  neither 
interference  nor  general  relaxation  is  practicable,  and  if  it  is  dangerous  to  extend 
too  far  the  necessary  discretion  of  the  administrators,  does  not  this  point  to  the 
need  of  a  thorough  and  searching  Church  reform  ?” . xii.  12-24. 

June  12.  Ritualism  in  Ottawa  described  in  12  letters  to  Bishop  Lewis;  col¬ 
lected  into  a  pamphlet  of  33  pages . xiii.  58. 

July  8.  Injunction  by  Bishop  Medley  (Epis.)  At  Sussex,  N.  B.,  the  Vestry 
invited  Rev.  W.  V.  Feltwell,  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  to  deliver  a  lecture.  Two  gentlemen 
served  upon  him  a  notice  of  Inhibition,  by  “  His  Lordship  the  Bishop  of  Frederic¬ 
ton,”  dated  June  22,  1874,  signed  “John  Fredericton.”  The  lecture  was  delivered 
notwithstanding.  [I  saw  this  vestry  when  they  called  on  Bishop  Cummins,  after 
the  service  on  Nov.  3,  in  which  Bishop  Cummins  was  assisted  by  one  Methodist, 
one  Baptist,  and  one  Reformed  Episcopal  minister,  as  prearranged  by  the  rector  ; 
and  to  my  question  received  the  answer  that  the  whole  Vestry  had  seceded  in  a 
body  and  were  then  present  as  members  of  the  R.  E.  C. — B.  A.] . xiii.  7. 

July  8.  Ritualism  in  Toronto,  Canada  (Epis.)  “  The  Synod  of  the  Diocese  has 
just  closed  one  of  the  most  exciting  sessions. . .  .Very  Rev.  Dean  Grassett  said  that 
he  had  never  held  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession. . .  .Rev.  Dr.  Lett :  Did  we 
understand  the  Dean  of  Toronto  to  say  that  he  does  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  Apos¬ 
tolic  Succession  ?  Very  Rev.  Dean  Grassett :  That  is  what  I  distinctly  say,  and 
that  is  what  I  have  always  taught  my  people.”. . .  .“  Col.  J.  G.  Denison  rose  amid 
considerable  noise,”  and  offered  a  resolution  against  Ritualism.  The  Bishop  tried 
to  stop  discussion.  Col.  D.  was  interrupted  by  Rev.  Mr.  Ford.  Chief-Justice  Draper 
called  Mr.  Ford  to  order.  Some  sharp  words  passed  between  the  Bishop  and  Col. 
D.,  who  said  :  “  If  lay  delegates  were  to  have  a  place  in  this  Synod,  they  ought  to 
know  what  that  place  was.  If  they  were  going  to  be  put  down  in  this  way  they 
had  better  stay  at  home.” . • . iii.  Jan.  8,  1875  ;  xii.  58. 

July  9.  Bishop  Gregg  (Ch.  St.)  in  the  Diocesan  Council  of  Texas,  May  30, 
among  remarks  quoted  (ii.  July  9),  said  :  “  The  disturbing  influences. . .  .the  conflict 
between  Medievalism  and  Catholicity . . .  .a  conflict  which  is  deepening  and  becom¬ 
ing  more  fierce  aud  intensified  than  ever  before  among  us. . .  .Disguise  the  facts  as 

j 


CHAPTER  III. 


65 


July  9,  1874. 

we  may,  it  is  no  longer  a  legitimate  struggle  between  two  or  more  schools  in  tbe 
Church. . .  of  ritual  or  ritualism  so  called,  but  of  fundamental  faith  and  practice — 
centering  in  the  doctrine  of  Eucharistic  adoration. ..  .There  is  manifestly  a  fixed 
determination  on  the  part  of  advanced  Churchmen  to  wage  the  conflict  to  the  last 
extremity. . .  .The  matter. . .  .was  made  the  subject  of  anxious  and  excited  discus¬ 
sion  in  two  successive  General  Conventions,  and  finally  disposed  of  in  1871,  by 
leaving  it  in  the  hands  of  the  ‘  Ordinary  ’. . .  .to  ‘  suppress  the  evil  . .  .The  result 
was. . .  .the  secession  of  a  few  to  Rome,  and  has  been  witnessed  since  in  the  con¬ 
tinued  spread  of  the  evil,  in  the  open  inculcation,  even  in  high  places,  of  what  we 
believe  to  be  fundamentally  false  doctrine,  in  a  more  thoroughly  organized  effort  to 
propagate  the  same,  and  in  a  more  bold  and  aggressive  front  than  ever  before.  A 
further  result  has  been  the  noisy  and  disturbing  agitation. . .  .with  the  unblushing 
and  reiterated  charge  made  by . . .  .the  opposite  extreme  in  the  Church  :  that  she  is 
directly  responsible,  as  her  formularies  and  dogmatic  teaching  now  stand,  for  cer¬ 
tain  alleged  objectionable  phrases  in  her  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  novel  and 
corrupt  practices  tacitly  sanctioned  or  openly  allowed.”  [For  the  next  portion  see 
ii.  July  9.  Then  as  follows]  :  “That  something  should  be  done  now  to  correct  the 
present  evil,  there  can  be  no  question.  . .  .The  spirit  that  animates  and  urges  on  the 
present  advanced  movement  will  not  brook  opposition,  and  has  no  reverence  for 
authority  which  is  adverse,  or  respect  for  opinions  contrary  to  its  own.  It  is  self 
willed,  imperious  in  its  individualism,  and  lawless  as  the  most  unbridled  sectarian¬ 
ism  itself.  Pastoral  letters  have  also  failed  most  signally  to  make  any  impression 
or  to  give  relief.  And  canons  prohibitory  would  prove  wholly  ineffectual  as  the  law 
of  the  Church  is  now  administered.  All  this  at  best  would  be  mere  surface  prun¬ 
ing.  We  must  go  deeper  down  than  this,  and  strike  at  the  root  of  the  disease  by 
bringing  to  trial  the  teachers  of  false  doctrine.  In  other  words,  by  the  enforcement 
of  a  sound  and  unsparing  discipline.  But  this  can  only  be  done  through  a  judicial 
authority  which  shall  define  the  teaching  and  interpret  the  law  of  the  Church, 
making  it  uniformly  operative  in  every  place  alike.  But  such  a  tribunal  we 
have  not  had.  The  other  departments  of  our  ecclesiastical  government  have  been 
merged  into  the  legislative,  and  that  has  virtually  undertaken  to  make,  interpret, 

and  execute  the  law _ ‘In  essentials  unity  ;  in  non-essentials  liberty  ;  in  all  things 

charity .’  But  charity  does  not  demand  apologetic  extenuation  of  heresy  or  schism 
. . .  .The  business  of  the  Church  is  not  with  men’s  motives,  but  with  their  acts,  and 
the  necessary  results  of  those  acts,  by  which  alone  they  are  to  be  judged. . .  ,xii.  58. 

July  9.  S.  Albans,  Holborn  (So.  Ch.)  This  ritualistic  church  was  founded  by 
J.  G.  Hubbard,  one  of  the  members  for  the  City  of  London.  He  said  :  “  The  money 

_ all  went  away  from  me.  It  was  no  longer  mine. . .  .For  some  time  I  took  the 

office  of  church-warden  ;  but  from  the  first  day,  practices  arose  against  which  I 

protested _ I  was  obliged  to  withdraw - and  abandon  the  work  upon  which  I  had 

heartily  entered  six  months  before  ” . xii.  52,  58. 

July  15.  Church  Liberty  (Epis.)  From  twro  columns  of  criticisms,  it  appears 
that  Dr.  Newton,  in  his ‘pamphlet,  claims  that  clergymen  in  the  P.  E.  C.  have  the 
right  to  change  the  Baptismal  Service  as  Dr.  Cheney  did,  and  that  he  himself  does 
so.  (iii.  Aug.  13,  1874;  Aug.  13,1875;  Feb.  10,  1875,  Jay  ;  March  17,1875;  xiii. 
13 ;  xi.  6,  8,  11,  12,  15,  18,  not  21  ;  ii.  Dec.  1, 1873,  card). 

Aug.  13.  Church  Liberty  (Ch.  St.)  says  :  “  Nothing  could  be  more  unwise  or 


66 


CHAPTER  III. 


August  13,  1874. 

miserably  abortive  than  the  Cummins  movement.  We  are  therefore  attracted  at 
once  by  the  position  of  Dr.  Newton,  who  feels  as  strongly  on  these  points  as  any  of 
those  who  have  joined  in  this  unfortunate  separation,  but  who  has  good  sense 
enough  to  see  that  this  is  no  way  in  which  to  secure  larger  liberty,  to  purify  the 
Church.”  (iii.  July  15,  references;  Aug.  19,  Cheney  ;  Sept.  10,  Eccles ;  Sept.  10, 
Geog. ;  March  17,  1875). 

Aug.  19.  Cheney- Whitehouse  Case  (Epis.)  The  Circuit  Court  on  Aug.  15, 
1874,  decides  that  the  church  built  at  the  expense  of  Bishop  Cheney’s  congregation 
does  not  belong  to  them,  but  to  the  P.  E.  C.  Also,  that  the  trial  of  Dr.  Cheney  by 
four  assessors,  when  five  were  appointed,  renders  all  their  action,  and  all  depending 
upon  that  action,  uncanonical  and  void,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  P.  E.  C. 
Hence  the  Rev.  C.  E.  Cheney  has  not  been  deposed  from  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  cannot 
be  ejected  from  the  Church  which  belongs  to  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  that  was  the  nature 
of  the  suit . xiii.  13. 

Aug.  27.  Church,  of  England  (Ch.  St.)  The  London  Spectator  says  :  “  It  was 
the  orthodox  [in  Parliament]  who  cheered  Sir  W.  Harcourt’s  hint :  That  Convocation, 
reformed  or  unreformed,  ought  not  to  exist ;  that  Parliament  had  nothing  to  learn 
from  any  ecclesiastics,  and  that  in  particular  the  authority  of  Archbishops  over 
Bishops  was  a  matter  not  to  be  settled  by  the  consent  of  Christendom,  but  by  the 
will  of  a  body,  which  on  such  subjects  does  not  pretend  to  represent  more  than  the 
predominant  opinion  of  the  larger  half  of  the  people  of  England  and  Wales. . .  . 
Parliament  was  master  anyhow — master  as  to  doctrine  as  well  as  discipline.” 

xii.  22,  58. 

Sept.  10.  Only  one  candidate  in  Maryland  (Ch.  St.)  Bishop  Whittingham, 
in  his  late  address,  said :  “  But  one  candidate  for  holy  orders  has  been  admitted 
within  the  year. . .  There  is  great  remissness  somewhere.  Shall  I  greatly  err  if  I 
were  to  say  everywhere  V’  (See  the  references  at  Aug.  13,  Church  and  State. 

xii.  45. 

Sept.  10.  Ecclesiastical  Courts  (Ch.  St.)  Editor  says:  “The  chaotic  condi¬ 
tion  of  our  ecclesiastical  courts. . .  .Above  all,  we  can  scarcely  realize  that  even  the 
uncanonical  sentence  of  a  Bishop  is  irreversible  (except  perhaps  in  the  civil  courts), 
and  that  the  law  of  the  Church  may  vary  for  every  diocese. . .  His  contention  was, 

‘  that  simply  as  a  matter  of  ecclesiastical  law,  an  uncanonical  sentence  was  voidable, 
and  not  void,  and  was  therefore  practically  absolute  because  irreversible.’  Precisely 
- — and  a  very  pretty  state  of  law  it  is,  when  ‘  uncanonical  sentences  ’  are  ‘  irre¬ 
versible.’  ”  (iii.  Aug.  13;  Oct.  28.  Appeal  ;  xiii.  13). 

Sept.  10.  Geographical  Churchmanship  (Ch.  St.)  The  editor  suggests  a 
map  to  indicate  the  standard  of  Churchmanship  in  each  diocese.  “All  a  man 
would  have  to  do  thereafter  would  be  to  consult  his  map,  on  which  he  could  deter¬ 
mine  at  a  glance  the  precise  area  of  Low,  High,  High  and  Dry,  High  fancy,  mixed, 
or  compound.  But  this  is  ridiculous,  says  the  reader.  Ridiculous  !  If  it  is  not 
ridiculous  to  have  the  thing,  is  it  ridiculous  to  represent  it  ?” .  . xiii.  13. 

Sept.  24.  Dr.  Seymour  (Ch.  St.)  Editor ;  “  In  the  present  condition  of  the 
Church,  it  may  seem  a  misfortune  that  a  man  of  Dr.  Seymour’s  Churchmanship 
should  have  been  chosen  for  a  Bishop;  but  perhaps  it  is  just  as  well  to  bring  things 
to  an  issue  first  as  last.  The  General  Convention  is  given  to  understand  that 
ritualism  is  unterrified  and  unabated.” . xii.  56. 


CHAPTER  III. 


67 


September  26,  1874. 

Sept.  2S.  Ritualism  (Trib.)  editorial  on  the  approaching  General  Convention 
of  the  P.  E.  C.  “  The  question  of  ritual  may  be  brought  up.  . .  .Every  effort  will 
be  made  to  prevent  any  discussion  on  the  subject.  . .  .From  the  action  of  many  of 
the  Diocesan  Conventions,  the  question  of  ritual  will  unquestionably  be  brought  up 
...  .a  matter  concerning  which  there  is  such  a  diversity  of  opinion,  that  if  the  Con¬ 
vention  were  to  decide  one  way  to  please  the  other  side,  the  opposition  would  take 
serious  offence,  and  the  breach  be  made  wider  than  before  ” . xii.  58. 

Sept.  30.  Ritual  and  Appeal  (Epis.)  Circular  of  Rev.  W.  H.  Carter,  D.D.,  of 
Passaic,  N.  J.,  and  others,  asking  the  General  Convention  :  “  I.  For  such  law  as  shall 
declare  what  ornaments  and  ritual — within  well  defined  limits — and  what  penalties 
shall  attach  to  the  transgression  of  these  limits  by  defect  or  excess.  II.  For  such 
legislation  as  shall  result  in  a  Court  of  Appeal,  (iii.  Sept.  10). 

Oct.  1.  Bishop  Tozer  (Trib.)  unanimously  invited  by  the  New  York  Diocesan 
Convention  to  sit  beside  the  Bishop . v.  5. 

Oct.  1.  RitualisiA  (Trib.)  “  St.  Mary  the  Virgin  ”  was  admitted  to  union  with  the 
New  York  Convention,  by  a  close  vote,  after  having  “  been  refused  admission  on 
several  occasions  ”  . . . xii.  58. 

Oct.  8.  to  'Nov.  3.  The  extracts  from  the  official  verbatim  reports  of  the 
speeches  and  acts  in  the  General  Convention  of  the  P.  E.  C.  are  quoted  on  the  day 
of  their  occurrence,  without  stating  the  authority,  which  in  all  cases  is  the  Daily 
Churchman. 

Oct.  8.  Greek.  Church.  “  Resolved,  That  any  Priest  or  other  clergy  of  the  Holy 
Orthodox  Eastern  Church  be  invited  to  seats  in  the  Convention.” 

xii.  58;  iii.  Oct.  20. 

Oct.  12.  Pan- Anglican  meeting  at  Lambeth.  This  long  and  interesting  dis¬ 
cussion  showed  that  the  Bishop  of  Litchfield  (who  preached  the  Convention  sermon) 
had  come  to  this  country  with  the  view  of  expediting  the  formation  of  a  Pan- 
Anglican  Organic  Union,  with  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  as  Metropolitan  of  the 
whole,  and  with  a  Court  of  Appeal  to  produce  uniformity  in  the  whole,  with  all  the 
members  of  the  Court  in  England.  This  was  not  distinctly  avowed,  but  was  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  the  secret  purpose,  and  the  leading  minds  in  the  Convention  scouted 
the  idea  of  this  surrender  of  our  nationality . xii.  58. 

Oct.  12.  Rev.  Dr.  Mead  said :  “  This  Church  insulted  by  the  Dean  of  Canter¬ 
bury.”  [by  the  Joint  Communion  of  Oct.  12.] . . . . . . . . v.  5. 

Oct,  12.  Mr.  Shattuck  of  Mass,  said:  “  I  was  present  at  the  Church  Congress 
in  England  some  four  years  ago,  and  you  would  have  thought  that  the  Church  of 
Christ  was  confined  to  the  realm  of  England.” . xii.  24. 

Oct.  12.  Toleration  (Ch.  St.)  Dr.  Andrews  says:  “The  word  ‘  tolerate’  there¬ 
fore  in  the  stated  propositions  must  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  not  preventing.  In 
this  sense  it  is  true  our  Church  at  this  time  tolerates  the  denial  of  Justification  by 
Faith,  the  sole  Mediatorsliipof  Christ,  Auricular  Confession,  Eucharistic  Adoration — 
in  short,  Romanism  preached  and  penned,  published  and  practiced.” . xii.  58. 

Oct.  13.  Arbitrary  Power.  Rev.  Mr.  Shippen  of  Kentucky  proposed  to  de¬ 
fine  what  is  **  Open  and  Notorious  Evil  Living,”  which  entitles  a  clergyman  to 
expel  a  layman  from  the  communion.  He  said  that  if  a  rector  thought  the  carry¬ 
ing  a  gold-headed  cane  ‘  open  and  notorious  evil  living’  he  might  expel  and  the 
layman  could  have  no  redress  unless  the  Bishop  reversed  the  action  of  the  rector. 


68 


CHAPTER  III. 


October  13,  1874. 

[Now  in  tlie  R.  E.  C.  no  person  can  be  excommunicated  except  on  trial  and  convic¬ 
tion  for  “  denial  of  the  faith,’’  or  “  a  walk  and  conversation  unworthy  of  a  Christian 
profession,’’  and  “  nothing  shall  be  admitted  as  matter  of  accusation  which  cannot  be 
proved  to  be  such  from  Holy  Scriptures.”  Then  he  may  appeal  in  case  of  condem¬ 
nation.] . . . xi.  43. 

Oct.  13.  Representation.  Rev.  Dr.  Beardsley  of  Connecticut  shows  that  the 
old  populous  dioceses  may  be  swamped  by  the  multitude  of  new  and  sparsely  popu¬ 
lated  dioceses.  [In  the  R.  E.  C.  Representation  is  in  the  ratio  of  communicants.] 

xi.  43. 

Oct.  19.  Ritualism.  (Trib.)  Editor  says:  “Its  origin  and  spread — Catholic 
and  Protestant  parties  in  the  P.  E.  C. — The  struggle  in  the  General  Convention.” 
....  “  The  once  thoroughly  Low  Church  Diocese  of  Massachusetts  narrowly  es¬ 
caped  electing  a  Ritualist  for  its  Bishop. ...  If  it  is  not  a  thing  to  be  respected,  it 
is  evidently  a  thing  that  is  very  much  feared  ;.  . .  .men  do  not  fire  broadsides  at 
butterflies;. . .  .both  parties  realize  that  it  is  a  question  whether  the  Auglican  Com 
munion,  as  a  separate  body  from  the  Roman,  is  essentially  one  with  the  Greek 
Church  or  essentially  one  with  the  Protestant  denominations.”  The  battle  about 
“  Ritualism  in  the  present  Convention  is  a  battle  raging  about  mere  outposts..  . . 
Episcopal  churches  in  New  York  shade  up  through  almost  imperceptible  degrees 
from  the  anti-Ritual  churches,  such  as  Ascension  and  St.  George’s,  through  those 
that  have  adopted  some  only  of  the  Ritualistic  features,  such  as  St.  Ann’s,  St.  Chris¬ 
topher’s,  Heavenly  Rest,  and  St.  John’s,  and  so  on  up  through  Trinity  Chapel, 
Transfiguration,  Holy  Communion,  Trinity  Church,  St.  Ignatius,  and  St.  Mary’s, 
even  to  St.  Albans  at  the  top.” . . xii.  58. 

Oct.  19.  Ritualism.  (Trib.)  Anglican  Bishops  are  to  convene  at  Lambeth  in 
November  to  consider  the  subject  of  Eucharistic  Vestments,  which  is  now  also  un 
der  consideration  in  the  Lower  House  of  Canterbury  Province.  The  Bishop  of 
Lincoln  will  lay  before  the  Conference  a  number  of  petitions  requesting  the  sanction 
of  a  distinctive  dress  at  the  administration  of  the  Communion. 

Oct.  19.  Board  of  Missions  (Trib.)  of  the  P.  E.  C.  received  $100,000  during 


the  past  year,  or  $14,000  less  than  the  year  before. ...  ; . xii.  45. 

Oct.  19.  Catholicity.  (Ch.  St.)  At  the  Episcopal  Church  Congress,  Dr.  Washburn 
said:  “  This  is  catholicity,  Pan-Anglican  catholicity  !  Universal  particular . This 


is  semper,  ubique  ct  ab  omnibus.  Always  from  the  Apostolic  Fathers  to  the  end  of 
the  Nicean  age,  and  since  then,  in  the  school  from  Andrews  to  Pusey  ;  everywhere 
in  the  island  of  Great  Britain  and  its  colonies,  in  Ceylon,  Calcutta,  Gibraltar,  Zanzi¬ 
bar,  and  the  rest;  including  our  own  Episcopal  Churches;  by  all;  by  the  whole 
world — saving  some  millions  of  Latins  and  Protestants  who  both  reject  it ;  and  the 
whole  English-speaking  world,  except  half  who  are  dissenters;  and  several  hundred 
thousands  in  this  America.  ” . xii.  8,  45. 

Oct.  20.  Greek  Church.  The  Convention  agreed  to  let  the  “  Filioque'1'1  ques¬ 
tion  rest  indefinitely . ,iii.  Oct.  8. 

Oct.  22.  Bishop  Seymour.  The  vote  on  the  resolution  reported  by  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  the  Consecration  of  Bishops,  approving  of  the  testimonials  of  the  Rev. 
George  F.  Seymour,  D.D.,  Bishop  elect  of  Illinois,  is  thus  reported  : 


CHAPTER  III. 


69 


October  22,  1874. 


Alab . 

Alb . 

Ark . 

Cal . 

Cen.  N.  Y. 

Cen.  Penn. 

Conn . 

Del...  ... 

Easton . 

Fla . 

Ga . 

Ill . 

Ind . 

Iowa . 

Kan . 

Ky . 

L.  Id . 

La . 

Me . 

Md . 

Mass . 

Names  of 
Dioceses. 

MMrfiKOOOOMMCOOJHMWHOtCCOCOPiMO 

Aye. 

Clerical  vote  by 
individuals. 

525 

o 

HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  1— l.  ha  MK  M- 

Aye. 

Clerical  vote  by 
Dioceses. 

l-A  M-  M-  M-  M-  M- M- 

.No. 

CO 

vi 

p 

Lay  vote  by 
individuals. 

OO 

No. 

ha  M-  l-n  1 — ^  1 — 

> 

VI 

p 

Lay  vote  by 
Dioceses. 

M-  M-  M-  1— 1  I—*-  M-  M-  M-  M- 

* 

o 

M,  ^  P  d-  (t  ®  CD  tS-  •  *  •  •  ®  O  |-u  JC 

;  h^i  •  •  P  B  •  .a  B  ®  o“,heh.  .  Pcm 

.  •  on  r  r  • 

:  H-**  *  i  :::::::::::  :  :  :  j 

•  •  •  i  «  t  *  •  «  t 

Names  of 
Dioceses. 

C5 

HA  HA 

to  00 

00 

HA  CD 

0505OrfHt0t0t0C0t0HAHAt005t005t005  05t0rfH 

Aye. 

Clerical  vote  by 
individuals. 

-5 

ha 

HAHA^OtOtOtOtOtOtOCOtOHAtOHAtOHAHAHA® 

teS 

o 

Ol  CD 

HA  HA 

O  CD 

HA  HA  HA  H— a  h1  ha  HA  ha  HA 

Aye. 

Clerical  vote  by 
Dioceses. 

ha 

O 

HA  HA  HA 

No. 

or 

05 

OHOMHtDOHtSOOtfAMOSOHMiCOU) 

Aye. 

Lay  vote  by 
individuals. 

HA 

to 

C5T  05 
05  00 

HMlfAOHl505b5t!5^tfA®OHH®HHCi5H 

No. 

M- 

05 

K  K  K  K  K 

Aye. 

Lay  vote  by 
Dioceses. 

Or 

HA  ha 
05  CD 

MHH  HA  HA  HA  HA  ha  HA 

No. 

Therefore  Dr.  Seymour  liad  in  his  favor  a  majority  of  18  votes  of  individual 
clergy,  and  of  6  votes  of  individual  clergy  and  laity  combined ;  and  of  4  votes  by 
dioceses  when  clerical  and  lay  votes  by  dioceses  are  combined,  and  lost  his  con¬ 
firmation  by  the  refusal  of  a  majority  of  5  lay  votes  by  dioceses,  because  he  must 
receive  a  majority  of  both  orders.  [The  above  corrects  the  evident  errors  in  the 
Churchman,  which  has  Central  Penn.  2  yeas  and  2  yeas  repeated.  Also  N.  II.  one 
yea  for  one  nay] . . . xii.  56. 

Oct.  22.  Court  of  Appeal.  The  House  of  Bishops  propose  to  amend  the 


70 


CHAPTER  III. 


October  22,  1374. 

Constitution  so  that  “Appeal  from  tlie  judgment  of  a  Diocesan  Court  may  be  pro¬ 
vided  for  by  the  General  Convention.  Oct.  24,  the  Committee  report  that  appeal 
requires  a  change  of  Constitution.  Oct.  28,  the  Committee  report  that  a  Court  of  Ap¬ 
peal  is  not  expedient . . ii.  Oct.  22  ;  iii.  Sept.  10,  Eccl.  ;  xii.  58. 

Oct.  22.  Ritualism.  General  Dix  and  300  other  communicants  oppose  any  re. 
strictive  canon . xii.  58. 

Oct.  23.  Ritualism.  The  Committee  proposes  to  forbid,  “  (a)  The  use  of  incense; 
(b)  the  placing  or  carrying  or  retaining  a  crucifix  in  any  part  of  a  place  of  public 
worship ;  (c)  the  elevation  of  the  elements  in  the  Holy  Communion  in  such  man¬ 
ner  as  to  expose  them  to  the  view  of  the  people  as  objects  towards  which  adoration 
is  to  be  made  ;  (d)  any  act  of  adoration  of  or  towards  the  elements  in  the  Holy 
Communion,  such  as  bowing,  prostrations,  genuflections,  and  all  such  like  acts  not 
authorized  or  allowed  by  the  Rubrics  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.”  On  Oct.  26, 
Dr.  Vinton  said  that  this  was  the  unanimous  action  of  the  13  members  of  the 
Committee.  On  Oct.  27,  it  was  adopted  by  ayes  38  clerical,  and  34  lay,  to  noes  2 
clerical  and  3  lay.  Divided,  1  clerical,  1  lay.  On  Oct.  30,  the  House  of  Bishops  re¬ 
turned  the  canon  with  (a)  and  (b),  on  incense  and  crucifix,  stricken  out.  The  Lower 
House  refused  to  adopt  the  change  ;  a  committee  of  conference  was  appointed.  On 
Oct.  31,  the  committee  reported  in  favor  of  the  change  made  by  the  Bishops,  and 
the  Canon  was  adopted  by  ayes — clerical  38,  lay  28;  to  noes — clerical  2,  lay  1;  divided 
— clerical  1,  lay  2. 

The  Canon  as  passed  is  as  follows:  “  Sec.  2  [1].  If  any  Bishop  have  reason  to 
believe,  or  a  complaint  be  made  by  two  or  more  of  his  presbyters,  that  within  his 
jurisdiction  ceremonies  or  practices  not  ordained  or  authorized  in  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  and  setting  forth  or  symbolizing  erroneous  or  doubtful  doctrines, 
which  have  been  introduced  by  any  minister  during  the  celebration  of  the  Holy 
Communion;  such  as  (a)  the  elevation  of  the  elements  in  the  Holy  Communion  in  such 
manner  as  to  expose  them  to  the  view  of  the  people  as  objects  towards  which  adora¬ 
tion  is  to  be  made ;  (b)  any  act  of  adoration  of  or  towards  the  elements  in  the 
Holy  Communion,  such  as  bowings,  prostrations,  genuflections ;  (c)  all  other  like 
acts  not  authorized  or  allowed  by  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer— it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  the  Bishop  to  summon  the  Standing  Committee  as  his  council  of  advice,  and 
with  them  to  investigate  the  matter.”  Then  follows  the  mode  of  proceeding  to 
“  admonish  ”  or  to  try  “  for  breach  of  his  ordination  vow  ” . xii.  56,  58. 

Oct.  24.  Baptismal  Regeneration.  Baptism  of  Infants.  Committee  proposes 
to  “  Add  as  a  Rubric,  at  the  end  of  the  Office  for  Infant  Baptism. . . .‘  The  minister 
may,  at  his  discretion,  omit  the  exhortation  preceding  the  Lord’s  Prayer  in  the 
above  office,  and  in  place  of  the  thanksgiving  substitute  the  Collect  for  Easter  even¬ 
ing'.’  This  Rubric,  however,  is  not  to  be  construed  as  implying  any  change  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church.”  [This  would  authorize  the  omission  of  Baptismal  Re¬ 
generation] . xii.  56 

Get.  24.  Changes  suggested.  The  Committee  on  Canons  “  furthermore  be¬ 
lieve  that  certain  changes  are  highly  desirable  on  their  own  account,  and  with  a 
view  to  accomplish,  among  others,  the  following  results,  viz. :  1st.  To  provide  a 
shorter  form  of  service,  public  and  private,  upon  certain  occasions  and  in  certain 
cases.  2d.  To  provide  greater  variety  in  the  regular  forms  of  public  service.  3d. 
To  provide  for  the  separation,  when  so  desired,  of  services  now  commonly  used  in 


CHAPTER  III. 


71 


October  24,  1874. 

connection.  4th.  To  remove  obscurities  in  the  present  Rubric,  and  to  supply  de¬ 
ficiencies  in  the  same  ;  e.  g.,  to  define,  for  order  sake,  more  accurately  the  postures 
to  be  observed  and  robes  and  ornaments  to  be  used.  5th.  To  secure  a  better  Lec¬ 
tionary,  especially  for  Lent.  6.  To  relieve  the  clergy,  scrupulous  in  the  observance 
of  the  Rubrics,  from  certain  hardships  now  resulting  therefrom.  On  Oct.  29,  this 
Canon  was  called  up,  and  the  report  says  that  more  than  500  clergymen,  and  a  very 
large  number  of  vestries  and  other  laymen,  and  the  nearly  unanimous  action  of  one 
of  the  largest  dioceses  [Virginia  ?]  desire  relaxation  of  the  Rubrics.  Oct.  31,  again 
called  up,  and  gave  way  to  pass  the  Canon  on  Ritual  (as  quoted  under  Oct.  23).  Then 
lost  by  ayes,  5  clerical,  6  lay;  to  noes,  34  clerical,  24  lay.  Divided,  1  clerical,  1  lay. 

xii.  56,  58. 

Oct.  24.  No  laymen  are  in  the  Standing  Committees  of  Connecticut  and  Mary¬ 
land,  says  Mr.  Welsh  of  Pennsylvania. 

Oct.  26.  The  Bishops  propose  a  canon  to  inhibit  immediately  a  Bishop  or 
presbyter  abandoning  the  P.  E.  C  . viii.  5. 

Oct.  26.  Dr,  Seymour.  “  The  acting  dean,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour,”  of  the 
General  Theological  Seminary,  appointed  by  the  trustees,  who  are  nominated  by  the 
dioceses,  and  confirmed  by  the  General  Convention . xii.  59. 

Oct.  26.  Rev.  Dr.  De  Koven  denies  Transubstantiation,  but  repeats  his  words 
used  in  the  General  Convention  of  1868,  “  I  myself  adore,  and  would,  if  it  were 
necessary  or  my  duty,  teach  my  people  to  adore,  Christ  present  in  the  elements  of 
bread  and  wine,”  and  says  that  in  England  this  has  been  decided  to  be  legal,  and 
shows  that  it  is  found  in  the  Prayer  Book.  He  says  that  the  new  Canon  does  not 
forbid  kneeling,  which  is  the  highest  act  of  adoration. 

Oct.  23;  iii.  Feb.  27 ;  xii.  54,  20,  58 

Oct.  20.  Ritualistic  books  by  Rev.  Orby  Shipley,  quoted  by  Rev.  Dr.  Rudder 
against  Dr.  De  Koven,  has  “  Blessed  Mary,  Mother  of  God,  Ever-Virgin,  through 
whose  fulfilment  of  all  righteousness,  thy  Divine  Son  was  circumcised  and  became 
obedient  unto  men — Pray  for  us.” — “  Grant,  0  Lord,  we  beseech  Thee,  that  we  Thy 
humble  servants,  may  enjoy  continued  health  of  mind  and  body,  and  by  the  glorious 
intercession  of  Blessed  Mary,  Ever-Virgin,  may  be  delivered  from  present  sorrows 
and  have  the  fountain  of  everlasting  joy.” . . xii.  58. 

Oct.  27.  Bishop  Cummins  is  referred  to  by  Mr.  Shattuck  of  Boston,  who  pro¬ 
claims  himself  a  Ritualist  and  desires  the  largest  liberty  for  all.  He  says  :  “  He 

w'anted  freedom  to  teach  all  his  doctrines.  There  was  no  Canon  to  hinder  him. 
There  was  no  restraint  at  all.  We  gave  him  the  highest  post  in  the  Church.  We 
made  him  assistant  Bishop.  We  sent  him  forth  to  preach  all  his  doctrines ;  but 
suddenly  he  left  us.  Why  ?  Could  he  not  preach  everything  he  did  ?  Yes.  But 
because  he  could  not  make  everybody  else  think  and  do  just  as  he  thought,  he  went 
off.” . vii.  1. 

Oct.  27.  Bishop  and  no  Church.  Mr.  Andrews  of  Ohio  objects,  that  the 
Canon  (Oct.  23)  refers  exclusively  to  the  Communion  ;  objects  to  indirect  teaching 
by  symbols  and  not  words.  “  Suppose  that  this  Convention  expressly  or  impliedly 
were  to  give  voice  to  the  opinion  that  incense. . .  .is  admissable,  and  on  Christmas 
next  throughout. . .  .this  land. . .  .surpliced  boys  enter  these  chancels  and  wave  the 
censer....  It  would  break  up  this  Church,  and  this  Convention  would  not  sit 
again.  You  would  not  have  to  discuss  the  question  whether  there  could  be  a 


72 


CHAPTER  III. 


October  27,  1874. 

Church  without  a  Bishop,  but  whether  there  should  be  a  Bishop  without  a 
Church.’’ . xii.  58. 

Oct.  27.  Ritualism  (Oct.  23.)  Rev.  Mr.  Bolton  of  Penn,  proposed  more  restric¬ 
tions  (than  Oct.  23).  He  says  that  Ritualism  signifies  Romanism.  “  Was  it  sim¬ 
ply  the  selling  of  indulgences,  for  instance,  that  the  Reformers  objected  to?  No, 
sir !  It  was  the  underlying  Confessional,  and  the  underlying  thing  at  the  root  of 
that  which  was  Priestcraft  in  the  Church  of  Rome.’’  He  then  read  from  a  Ritu¬ 
alistic  book  on  the  Communion.  He  thinks  there  is  law  enough  already  if  en¬ 
forced.  He  says  of  the  proposed  Canon  (Oct.  23) :  “  Trophies  of  three  weeks  con¬ 
clave — as  the  hatching  of  three  weeks  incubation.  ‘  We  have  answered  everything 
and  the  course  of  the  Church  is  now  clear  now  having  condemned  these  things 
that  do  not  exist  in  her  midst  at  all ;  having  condemned  these  things  that  nobody 
cares  anything  about,”  etc . xii.  58. 

Oct.  27.  Ritualism  (Oct.  23.)  Rev.  Dr.  Garrett  of  Nebraska :  “  You  never  can 
draft  a  Canon  excluding  certain  things  by  negative  statements  which  shall  be  so 
comprehensive,  so  exhaustive  in  its  qualifications,  as  that  nobody  may  be  able  to 


evade  its  provisions.” . xii.  58. 

Oct.  27.  Rev.  Dr.  Clark  of  New  Jersey  read  extracts  from  a  Ritualistic  docu¬ 
ment,  which  is  used  in  this  country  and  placed  in  the  pews.  He  said :  “  Sir, 
Ritualism  does  exist.” . . xii.  58. 


Oct.  27.  Ritualism.  Mr.  Blanchard  of  Maryland  :  “  I  claim  that  this  Canon 
....prohibits  nothing,  enjoins  nothing....  All  the  specifications  here  are  mere 
words.’’  He  proposes  a  substitute.  He  says  of  the  secret  session  on  Dr.  Seymour  : 
“  It  was  assumed  by  all. . .  .that  the  candidate. . .  .could  not  by  any  possibility  be 
confirmed. . .  .if  he  did  hold. . .  .or  practice _ Eucharistic’ Adoration  or. . .  .Auric¬ 
ular  Confession.” . xii.  58. 

Oct.  27.  Ritualism  (Oct.  23.)  Rev.  Dr.  Hall  of  Long  Island  says  :  “  It  is  per¬ 
fectly  well  known  what  the  Canon  means.  It  means  either  the  downfall  or  the 
victory  of  Ritualism.” . xii.  58. 

Oct.  27.  Canon  on  Ritualism  (Oct.  23)  carried  by  ayes  :  thirty-eight  clerical, 
and  thirty -four  lay  ;  noes  :  two  clerical,  three  lay  ;  divided  one  clerical,  one  lay 
(see  the  Canon  at  Oct.  23) . • . xii.  56,  58. 

Oct.  28.  Abandonment  of  Communion.  Report  put  on  calendar. 

Oct.  28.  Court  of  Appeals  not  expedient . iii.  Sept.  10,  1874. 

Oct.  29.  Infant  Baptism.  Report  of  Oct.  24  called  up.  This  report  says 
that  more  than  500  clergymen,  and  a  very  large  number  of  Vestries  and  other  lay¬ 
men,  and  the  nearly  unanimous  action  of  one  of  the  largest  dioceses  [Virginia] 
desire  relaxation  of  the  Rubrics . xii.  58. 

Oct.  29.  Infant  Baptism  (Oct.  24.)  Rev.  Dr.  Andrews  of  Virginia,  quotes  Dr. 
Pusey  :  “  No  change  of  heart  or  of  the  affections,  no  repentance,  however  radical, 
no  faith,  no  love,  can  come  up  to  the  idea  of  this  birth  from  above.  It  is  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  a  new  heart,  new  affections,  new  desires,”  etc. — “  a  statement  more  bold  and 
contrary  to  the  Bible  than  I  can  find  in  any  Roman  Catholic  writer — and  yet  he 
declares  for  himself  and  party  in  these  and  other  extreme  opinions,  ‘  We  have  made 
our  way  by  the  Prayer  Book  ’  [Oct.  26,  Dr.  De  Koven.] ....  Revision  is  not  asked 
for,  and  no  man  is  more  opposed  than  I  am  to  opening  the  Book  to  any  Commission 
for  that  purpose;. . .  .let  it  come  up  singly  and  upon  its  own  merits . The  Bishops 


CHAPTER  III. 


73 


October  29,  1874. 

hung  up  a  great  light. ..  .showing — what?  In  their  opinion  upon  a  single  point, 
what  is  not — something  indeed  to  he  thankful  for — but  upon  no  point  what  is  ... 
One  of  the  greatest  minds  in  the  country,  left  our  ministry  lately  solely  on  account  of 
the  Baptismal  Office. ...  In  Illinois. . .  .the  sole  trouble  was  about  this  office. 
Take  the  other  seceders,  I  know  all  of  them  who  have  given  most  character  to 
the  movement,  and  in  every  case  it  was  this  Office  and  this  alone  which  started 
them;  though  when  they  determined  to  leave,  they  raised  all  the  objections  they 
could  think  of . xii.  58;  xi.  15. 

Oct.  29.  Infant  Baptism  (Oct.  24.)  This  report  is  opposed  in  succession  by 
Rev.  Dr.  Adams  of  Wisconsin,  Mr.  Burgwin  of  Pittsburg,  Mr.  Sliattuck  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  and  Mr.  Welsh  of  Pennsylvania . xii.  58. 

Oct.  29.  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  Rev.  Dr.  Adams  said :  “  If  I  under¬ 
stand  anything  of  the  recent  movement  which  was  made  from  the  Church,  it  was 
. . .  .that  this  Church  was  drifting  in  the  wrong  direction.  They  felt  alarmed  > 
they  believed  that  there  was  so  strong  a  current  in  the  Church,  of  advancement; 
that  they  were  not  safe  in  remaining  here,  and  they  had  to  leave  the  ship  before 
she  sunk.” . xiii.  10  ;  xii.  56. 

Oct.  29.  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  Rev.  Dr.  Sullivan  of  Illinois  :  “  The 
Reformed  Episcopal  movement. ...  I  regard  that  movement  with  neither  fear  nor 
favor.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  when  I  go  back  to  Scripture  I  can  find  Scripture 
warrant  aud  authority  for  the  movement.  I  can  find  it  in  the  Old  Testament.  I 
find  it  in  the  cave  of  Adullam,  where  every  one  that  was  in  debt,  and  every  one  that 
was  in  distress,  and  every  one  that  was  discontented,  went  to  tlieir  chosen  leader 
and  he  became  captain  over  them. ...  I  can  find  it  in  the  history  of  Amelelc,  who, 
we  are  told,  skulked  like  a  coward  in  the  rear  of  Israel  and  smote  the  liindermost 
of  them,  even  all  that  were  feeble  behind  them.  These  are  the  only  Scriptural  war¬ 
rants  that  I  find  for  the  Reformed  Church.” 

“  Rev.  Dr.  Clark  of  New  Jersey.  I  call  the  gentleman  to  order.  He  is  person¬ 
al  in  his  remarks.  [Laughter.]” . xiii.  25 

Oct.  29.  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  Rev.  Dr.  Huntingdon,  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts.  . .“  Because  we  are  in  a  crisis - What  is  this  crisis  ?  The  gentleman  who 

preceded  me  spoke  as  if  he  imagined  it  was  a  crisis  brought  on  by  a  recent  move¬ 
ment  in  this  Church,  known  as  the  Reformed  Episcopal  movement.”  Rev.  Dr.  Sulli 
van — “  I  repudiate  that.”  Rev.  Dr.  Huntingdon—"  The  gentleman  repudiates  it.  I 
am  glad  he  does.  To  my  mind  the  crisis  comes  from  a  far  profounder  movement 
than  that.”  He  then  attributes  it  to  “  that  illustrious  man,  John  Henry  Newman.” 

xii.  56,  58. 

Oct.  29.  “  Let  the  Prayer  Book  alone,”  says  Mr.  Wilder  of  Minnesota,  is  the 
wish  of  the  laity . xii.  58. 

Oct.  29.  Refromed  Episcopal  Church.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Garrison,  of  New 
Jersey,  favors  the  report  of  Oct.  24.  “We  are  not  to  make  laws  for  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church,  or  those  who  desire  to  go  off  in  that  direction  ;  nor  for  the  so- 
called  Ritualists,  and  those  who  desire  to  go  of!  there  ;  but  with  a  broad,  wide, 
catholic  desire  to  give  the  widest  liberty — but  liberty  within  law.”  [This  sounds 
like  Dr.  Garrison,  whom  I  have  known  for  many  years  as  a  High  Church,  high- 
toned  leader  of  liberality  in  the  High  Church,  high-toned  Diocesan  Convention  of 
New  Jersey] . vii.  4;  xiv.  4. 


74  CHAPTER  III. 

Oct.  30,  1874. 

Oct.  30.  Canon  on  Ritual,  as  amended  by  the  Bishops,  is  referred  to  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Canons,  who  report  against  it.  Report  adopted,  and  a  Committee  of 
Conference  appointed . xii.  50. 

Oct- 30.  Rev.  Dr.  Fulton,  of  Alabama:  “  Take. ..  .the  Western  Diocese  of 
Kentucky.  Will  ypu  there  find  seven  self-supporting  parishes  all  through  it  ?  I 
doubt  it.  Take  the  Dioceses  of  Alabama  in  the  South.  Have  we  there  seven  self- 
sustaining  parishes  all  through  ?  If  we  have,  I  will  tell  you  how  wre  have  them. 
We  have  them  because  we  have  men  doing  something  like  this — living  on  $150  a 
year,  and  borrowing  that.”  [And  still  these  few  parishes  have  as  much  power  as 
the  old  large  dioceses] . xiii.  23. 

Oct.  31.  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour.  Documents  are  mentioned  as  having  been  intro¬ 
duced  into  the  debate  on  his  confirmation  as  Bishop  of  Illinois,  with  evident  refer¬ 
ence  to  something  like  these  reported  by  the  Republic  of  Oct.  21 . xii.  56. 

Oct.  31.  Trustees  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary  are  now  360  and 
will  soon  reach  1,000.  They  are  nominated  by  the  Dioceses  and  confirmed  by  the 
General  Committee . xii.  56. 

Oct.  31.  Canon  on  Ritual  reported  by  the  Committee  of  Conference  of  Oct.  31,  is 
the  same  as  reported  (Oct.  23),  with  the  omission  of  “  (a)  The  use  of  incense  ;  (b) 
the  placing  or  carrying  or  returning  a  crucifix  in  any  part  of  a  place  of  public 
worship.’’  [And  the  Ritualists  have  triumphed] . xii.  56,  58. 

Oct.  31.  Ritual.  Dr.  De  Koven  regards  the  change  (Oct.  31)  as  valuable. 

Oct.  31.  Infant  Baptism.  Rev.  Dr.  Vinton  and  Rev.  Dr.  Andrews  advocate 
the  proposed  Canons  (Oct.  24). 

Oct.  31.  Bishop  Cheney.  Rev.  Dr.  Beck,  of  Central  Pennsylvania,  opposes  the 
change  (Oct.  24),  and  says  that  in  1868,  a  memorial  was  prepared  in  New  York,  and 
sent  over  the  whole  Church,  and  received  500  signatures,  saying  that  the  whole 
Church  was  distracted  on  this  score.  Then,  “  This  dispute  has  been  of  very  long 
standing. ..  .That  Bishop  of  irregular  ordination,  who  is  now  lying  loose 
about  in  the  West  and  East,  and  all  about.  [Laughter.]  Bishop  Cheney  was  once 
brought  to  trial  by  one  of  the  greatest  legal  minds  in  the  Church. . .  .for  exercising 
of  his  own  accord  this  very  privilege. ..  .He  is  now  a  Bishop,  wandering  about, 
consecrated  by  Bishop  Cummins. ..  .What  does  the  man  who  is  a  Cheneyite  say  ? 
Why,  you  have  acted  unjustly,  you  have  deposed  poor  Cheney  because. ..  .he 
omitted  a  single  word.  Now  you. . .  .authorize  all  to  omit  it. . .  .If  you  find. .  .that 
you  are  wrong  in  using  this  book,  withdraw  from  the  Church  whose  manual  it  is 
. . .  .and  God’s  blessing  go  with  them  ” . xii.  56,  58  ;  xiii.  13. 

Oct.  31.  Bishop  Cheney.  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  of  Wisconsin,  referring  to  Dr. 
Vinton’s  remark  respecting  the  changes  in  Infant  Baptism  says :  “  I  am  glad 
that  he  felt  they  were  dead. . .  .1  hope  no  vote  of  this  House  will  try  to  restore  them 
to  life,  which  life  will  uphold  Bishop  Cheney . xii.  58  ;  xiii.  13. 

Oct.  31.  Canon  on  Ritual  of  (Oct.  31)  passed  by  ayes,  38  clerical,  and  28  lay; 
noes,  2  clerical,  and  1  lay  ;  divided — 1  clerical,  and  2  lay  [so  incense  and  crucifix 
may  be  used.  See  above,  Oct.  31.] . xii.  56,  58. 

Oct.  31.  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  Mr.  Meigs,  of  New  Jersey,  opposed 
the  change  in  Baptism  (Oct.  24) :  “  Suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  word  ‘  shall  ’  in  the 
Rubrics  of  our  Church  should  be  changed  to  the  word  4  mav  ’  wherever  it  occurs.  I 
ask. . .  .whether  . .  .we  could  not  invite,  most  cordially  and  legitimately,  the  R.  E. 
C.  and  its  Prayer  Book  to  come  into  union  with  this  Church.” 


xv. 


CHAPTER  III. 


Oct.  31,  1874. 

Oct.  31.  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  Rev.  Dr.  Fulton,  of  Alabama,  on  tlio 
change  of  Canon  (Oct.  24) :  “  The  men  who  are  in  favor  of  this  thing  now,  are  not 
the  old  Evangelicals  who  carried  the  Evangelical  banner  so  nobly. . .  .Who  are 
they  ?  I  say  they  are  not  brave  men,  or  they  would  send  us  a  petition  saying, 
‘  Our  conscience  is  troubled’. . . .  As  to  the  Apostolicity  and  validity  of  Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins’  sect.  . .  .1  deny  it  to  be  in  any  sense  Apostolic _ If  I  admit  that  his  ordina¬ 

tions  may  be  valid,  it  is  because  I  admit  that  a  man’3  son  is  his  son,  although  he 
may  be  very  unlike  his  father. . .  .This  comes  under  the  head  of  a  threat,  £  Men  are 
waiting  to  see  what  we  do  in  order  that  they  may  go  out.’  If  they  are  going  out 
to  Bishop  Cummins’  schism,  by  all  means  let  them  go,  and  I  shall  be  thankful  to 
the  Cummins  schism  for  operating  on  this  Church  as  a  blister  to  which  all  such  ele¬ 
ments  may  be  drawn  ”...., . .  .xiii.  10;  xi.  43. 

Oct.  31.  Canon  on  Baptism  of  Infants  (Oct.  24)  lost  by  ayes,  5  clerical,  6  lay  ; 
noes,  34  clerical,  24  lay ;  divided,  1  clerical,  1  lay . xii.  56,  58. 

Nov.  2.  Church  Music,  Standard  Bible,  Lectionary  for  Lent,  German  Prayer 
Book,  Delegates  to  Canadian  Synod,  Publication  of  Journal  (costs  $8,000),  Point¬ 
ing  the  Paslter,  Revised  Hymnal,  Separation  of  Services,  Rubrical  Revision  by 
Committee,  Spanish  Prayer  Book,  Congregations  of  a  foreign  race  were  discussed. 

Nov.  3.  Abandonment  of  Communion,  “  provides  for  such  a  case  as  that  of 
Bishop  Cummins,  who  recently  left  this  Church.”. . .  1 . viii.  5. 

Nov.  3.  Pastoral  Letter  of  the  Bishops.  This  in  general  is  excellent.  But 
the  following  points  are  noteworthy :  First,  “  How  glorious  is  the  liberty,  how  high 
the  privilege  of  the  clergy,  to  refrain  from  all  self-assertion,  to  utter  that  only 
which  God  and  his  Church  put  in  their  mouths,  and  to  afford  the  most  signal  ex¬ 
ample  of  that  obedience  of  faith  which  obeys  law  simply  because  it  is  law.”  (iii. 
Nov.  11,  Pastoral.) 

Second ,  “  But  a  small  proportion  of  those  who  are  admitted  candidates  are  self- 
supporting.  The  priest’s  office  is  not  coveted  by  many.  Nay,  it  is  avoided  by  too 
many  of  the  ingenuous  and  favored  youth  of  the  country,  whose  parents  are  able  to 
give  them  an  unrestricted  choice  of  profession.”  (xii.  45.) 

Third,  They  lay  great  stress  on  the  necessity  of  teaching  the  Catechism, 
(xii.  58. ) 

Fourth,  They  lay  great  stress  on  the  absolute  obligation  to  observe  “  Charity” 
in  its  broadest  sense,  (xiii.  7;  iii.  Nov.  11.  Bapt.) 

Nov.  3.  Changes  in  Church' Services  (Trib.  of  Nov.  2.)  editor  :  “  The  mode 

of  conducting  divine  service  in  the  P.  E.  C . has  been  so  steadily  changing 

during  the  last  seventy  years,  that  as  rendered  anywhere  to-day  it  would  present 
very  strange  features  to  the  worshipper  of  the  last  century. . .  .One  of  these  is  to 
be  found  in  the  remarkable  growth  and  spread  of  High  Church  principles,  since 
Bishop  Hobart’s  day,  sixty  years  ago.  In  the  subsequent  growth  and  spread  of 
the  Oxford  views  during  the  last  thirty  years,  and  in  the  consequent  spread  of  Ritu¬ 
alism  or  Catholicity  in  the  last  fifteen  years.”  This  paper  then  describes  St. 
Albans  and  “  St.  Ignatius  and  St.  Mary  the  Virgin  ”  and  “  Low  Churches  ”  and  con¬ 
tinues  with,  — 

Nov.  3.  Ritual  Legislation.  (Trib,  of  Nov.  2).  “There  was  no  attempt  at 
hostile  legislation  until. ..  .1868,  since  the  first  prominent  American  Ritualistic 
Church  (St.  Albans,  New  York)  had  only  been  established  about  three  years  before 
tn  1971  n  decided  attemot  was  made.  A  committee  of 


CHAPTER  III. 


7Q 

November  3,  1874. 

Bishops  brought  in  a  report;. ..  .this  report  was  not  seriously  considered. . .  .The 
Canon  was  defeated.  The  next  day  the  Bishops  sent  down  a  Canon  on  Eucharistic 
Adoration,  which  was  defeated  in  the  Lower  House  by  three  votes.  The  It.  E.  C. 
movement  has  since  filled  many  Churchmen  with  apprehension,  lest  Virginia  and 
Ohio  and  Low  Church  parishes  in  other  States  should  rally  round  the  standard  of 
Bishop  Cummins,  on  the  ground  that  ‘  the  whole  Church  in  America  is  drifting 
over  to  the  Ritualists  ;  ’  ”  (xii.  89.)  Also, 

Nov.  3.  The  New  Canon  Nugatory  (Trib.  of  Nov.  2.)  “  A  delegate  who  is  in 
sympathy  with  the  Ritualists  says,  “  It  is  amusing  to  see,  that  notwithstanding  the 
panic,  to  how  small  a  residuum  the  list  of  prohibitions  has  been  boiled  down.  Com¬ 
pared  with  the  list  of  the  five  Bishops  in  1871  it  will  be  seen  that  we  may  regard 
as  not  forbidden  the  following.’’  (see  Nov.  14,  Ritualist.) 

Nov.  3.  Kentucky  Diocese  (Tribune,  Nov.  2,)  has  41  clergymen;  45  parishes  and 
churches;  680  baptisms  in  the  year;  323  confirmations;  3,947  members ;  $80,838. 
total  contributions . xi.  26* 

Nov.  4.  Changes  in  Constitution  and  Canons  of  P.  E.  C.  are  given  in  full  in 
(Ch.  St.) . ' . viii.  5. 

Nov.  11.  Goddard  of  St.  Andrews  (Epis.)  “Considering  the  disturbed  and 
agitated  condition. . .  .of  our  Church  in  reference  to  Ritualism,  and  the  alarming 
progress  which  of  late  years  towards  Romish  errors  and  practices,  especially  marked 
by  the  exodus  of  Bishop  Cummins  and  others  of  our  most  prominent  and  active 
clergymen ....  The  R.  E.  C.  does  exist  and  grow,  and  Ritualism  and  Eucharistic 
Adoration  are  not  wounded  to  death  among  us.” . xii.  56. 

Nov.  11.  Pastoral  Letter  (Epis.)  editor  says:  “In  the  concluding  part  of  the 
paragraph. . .  .this  sentence,  ‘  How  glorious  is  the  liberty,  how  high  the  privilege  of 
the  clergy,  to  refrain  from  all  self-assertion,  to  utter  that  which  only  God  and  His 
Church  put  into  their  mouths,  and  to  afford  the  most  signal  example  of  that  obedi¬ 
ence  of  faith,  which  obeys  law  because  it  is  law.’  Now  this  seems  abject  slavery 
to  the  will  and  opinions  of  men.  What !  shall  the  Church  be  exalted  to  an  equality 
to  the  word  of  God  ?  A  privilege  to  utter  what  God  and  the  Church  put  into  our 
mouths  .' . iii.  Nov.  3, Past.  1st;  xii.  58 

Nov.  11.  Church  and  State  says :  “  Some  of  the  adherents  of  the  R.  E.  C. 
are  evidently  disappointed  with  the  result  of  the  late  General  Convention.” 

xii.  56, 

Nov.  11.  Drift  of  the  Church  (Ch.  St.)  The  editor  thinks  this  drift  has  been 
improved  by  the  “  moral  influence  ”  of  the  late  Convention,  and  “  It  is  not  neces¬ 
sary  to  repeat  the  arguments. . .  .against  canonical  legislation  in  regard  to  doctrine 
and  ritual. ..  .We  think  that  the  attempt  to  suppress  ritual  by  any  Canon,  the 
object  of  wdiicli  is  to  define  doctrine  not  defined  before,  or  establish  new  rules  of 
worship,  is  as  objectionable  as  it  is  futile  ”  . xii.  58. 

Nov.  11.  Baptismal  Degeneration  and  Charity  (Ch.  St.)  correspondent :  “  It 
must  therefore  be  taken  that  the  House  of  Delegates  of  both  Orders,  substan¬ 
tially  declared  that  by  Baptism  alone  one  is  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  or,  as 
Dr.  Adams  frankly  expressed  it,  converted. . .  .The  comprehensive  charity  of  the 
Pastoral  does  not  include  in  its  love  and  sympathy  any  of  the  30,000  ministers  of 
the  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  Congregationalist,  Lutheran,  and  Baptist  Churches 
in  this  country. . .  .It  may  be  said  that  we  do  not  want  them  to  come  into  our  pul- 


CHAPTER  III. 


77 


November  11,  1874. 

pits  ;  and  some  of  them  are  not  so  polished  as  we  like  to  have  teachers,  for  although 
we  are  comparatively  a  small  people,  we  are  very  select  ” . xii.  58. 

Nov.  11.  Rejoice  (Cli.  St.)  Standard  of  the  Cross  says  :  “  Let  us  state  the  two 
reasons  for  which  we  may  regard  this  as  an  hour  of  general  congratulation. . .  .We 
were  fast  losing  the  character  of  a  Church  of  Christ,  and  becoming  a  narrow,  arro¬ 
gant  sect. . .  .As  our  evidence. . .  .we  may  recall  the  General  Convention  of  1868,  in 
which  the  Low  Church  party  was  directly  legislated  against  by  the  High  Church¬ 
men.  . .  .Now  the  Churchmen  who  lead  and  direct  are  wearing  no  badge,  but  are 
followed  and  trusted  because  of  their  simple  loyalty  to  Christ,  and  the  best  interests 
of  the  Protestant  communion” . xii.  56,  59. 

Nov.  11.  The  Methodist  (Ch.  St.)  “  The  Romish  germ — the  theory  of  Succes¬ 
sion — still  remains  in  the  Church.  Some  of  the  overtopping  branches  that  have 
sprung  from  it  have  been  cut  off,  but  the  evil  root  is  left.  The  Church  Times,  of 
London,  says  that  no  legislation  can  arrest  ritualism. . . .  As  long  as  the  dogma  of 
Apostolic  Succession  remains,  the  Church  will  tend  to  ritulastic  error.  The  Ritualist 
is  only  a  severely  logical  Churchman  ” . xii.  58. 

Nov.  11.  Independent  (Ch.  St.)  “The  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration 
has  no  more  warrant  in  the  Word  of  God  than  the  doctrine  of  consubstantiation. 
Both  doctrines  equally  involve  the  Sacerdotal  principle,  and  all  that  it  implies.” 

xi.  43. 

Nov.  11.  Church.  Journal  (Ch.  St.)  “  The  future  of  the  Church  on  these  con¬ 
siderations  was  never  brighter. _ The  clergy  gather  about  the  Bishop’s  chair,  feel¬ 

ing  that  in  it  is  the  organized  headship  for  the  common  work  of  salvation  of  men, 
and  giving  it  loyal  confidence  as  well  as  firm  affection. . .  .and  may  the  hand  be 
withered  and  the  tongue  dumb,  that  writes  or  speaks  to  organize  a  *  party,’  or  pro¬ 
mote  ‘  views.’  ”  (See  Jan.  7, 1875;  xii.  58). 

Nov.  11.  Church  of  England  (Ch.  St.)  The  London  Spectator  says :  “  One 
thing  is  very  certain,  Parliament  has  the  supreme  control  of  the  Established  Churchy 
and  Parliament,  containing  as  it  does,  very  large  elements  of  non-Anglican 
belief,  will  never  consent  to  discuss  minutely  the  condition  of  Church  membership 
or  clerical  subscription. . .  .Rather  than  debate  continually  articles  of  belief  in  a 
heterogeneous  body  of  Atheists,  Theists,  Jews,  Roman  Catholics,  and  every  shade  of 
orthodox  and  heterodox  Protestants  ;  or  still  worse,  rather  than  allow  itself  to  be 
guided  by  such  a  body  as  the  Clerical  Convocation  which  now  exists,  Parliament 
will  evade  the  difficulty  by  telling  the  Church  to  shift  for  itself” . xii.  22. 

Nov.  14.  “  Ritualist  ”  (Trib.)  “  Ritualist  ”  says :  “  Sir, — The  Episcopal  Church 
has  passed  through  a  tremendous  crisis,  threatening  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  to 
rend  her  in  twain _ The  result  has  been  not  to  suppress  the  Ritualists,  but  to  rec¬ 

ognize  and  to  satisfv  them. . .  .The  Herald. . .  .said  :  ‘  And  so  Ritualism  is  dead,  is 
it  ?’  The  Tribune  on  the  same  day  gave  a  similar  intimation. . .  .Pour  weeks  ago, 
it  was  ‘  No  quarter  to  the  Ritualists ’...  .The  storm  spent  its  violence  over  the 
question  of  the  Illinois  Episcopate.  But  the  re-action  was  even  then  already  taking 
place,  as  is  indicated  by  the  145  votes  for  Seymour  against  140  in  opposition.... 
In  order  to  appreciate  what  the  report  of  the  Committee  amounted  to,  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  give  a  glance  at  the  list  of  counts  against  Ritualism.  They  were :  1.  An  Al¬ 
tar  Cross. — 2.  A  Retable. — 3.  Alar  flowers. — 4.  Eucharistic  lights. — 5.  Processional 
Cross. — 6.  Bowing  toward  the  altar  on  entering  and  leaving  the  church. — 7.  The 


-78 


CHAPTER  III. 


November  14,  1874. 

sign  of  the  Cross. — 8.  Salutations  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  Altar. — 9.  Eucharistic 
Vestments. — 10.  Colored  Chasubles. — 11.  Auricular  Confession. — 12.  Banners. — 13. 
Prayers  for  the  faithful  departed. — 14.  Use  of  unleavened  bread. — 15.  Mixed  Chalice 
with  the  blessing  of  water. — 16.  Ablutions. — 17.  Change  of  book  to  the  Gospel  side 
for  the  Gospel. — 18.  Epistle  and  Gospel  not  read  towards  the  people. — 19.  Purifica¬ 
tion  of  Sacred  vessels  after  the  blessing. — 20.  Bowings  at  the  Sacred  Name,  or  on 
entering  or  departing  from  the  Church. — 21.  Altar  cards  and  secrets. — 22.  Lay 
clerks  to  assist  at  celebrations. — 23.  Lighting  additional  lights  at  Consecration  and 
Magnificat. — 24.  The  use  of  the  Viretta. — 25.  The  Cope. — 26.  Three  Hours’  Agony 
Service. — 27.  Singing  Sursum  Corda ,  also  Benedidus  and  Agnus  Dei. — 28.  Invoca¬ 
tion  of  the  Trinity,  with  sign  of  Cross  before  sermon. — 29.  Crucifixes. — 30.  Incense. 
— 31.  Elevation  of  sacred  species. — 32.  Eucharistic  Adoration.  All  these  had  been 
specified.  But  to  the  amazement  of  Catholics  28  out  of  the  32  counts  had  been  ut¬ 
terly  abandoned,  and  the  fight  was  to  close  around  the  last  four  only.  Even  the 
use  of  the  crucifix  and  of  incense  at  other  times  than  the  celebration  was  not 
touched.  . .  .So  the  Canon  passed  and  went  to  the  House  of  Bishops.  . .  .The  latter 
struck  their  pen  through. ..  .the  two. ..  .concerning  crucifixes  and  incense. ..  .In 
this  form  the  Canon  passed  both  houses. . .  .leaving  two  only. . .  .The  first  of  the 
two  is — not  any  elevation  whatever,  but — ‘  the  elevation  of  the  elements  in  the 
Holy  Communion  in  such  a  manner  as  to  expose  them  to  the  view  of  the  people  as 
objects  towards  which  adoration  is  to  be  made ’....It  is  something  which  is  not 
and  has  not  been  the  practice  in  any  ritualistic  Church.  So  that  this  specification 
was  uselessly  inserted.  This  reduces  the  entire  indictment  to  one  count  only — 
namely,  no  adoration  of  the  blessed  Lord  except  such  as  are  provided  by  the  Rubrics 
of  the  Prayer  Book.  But  as  Dr.  De  Koven  said  :  ‘  That  is  all  we  ask  ;’  the  Prayer. 
Book  says :  ‘  All  kneeling.’  And  then  the  Canon  went  through  with  an  almost 
unanimous  vote.”  (See  iii.  Oct.  23  ;  xii.  56,  Canon  on  Ritual).  [This  paper  ver¬ 
batim,  and  one  by  a  Reformed  Episcopalian  (H.  B.  Turner),  are  printed  together 
under  the  title  “  Church  Freedom  ”  (pp.  16),  acc.  R.  E.  C.  at  38  Bible  House,  New 
York.] 

Nov.  14.  Low  Church.  (Patterson  Press)  from  Newark  Advertiser's  cor¬ 
respondent.  He  takes  about  the  same  view  of  the  result  of  legislation  as  (iii.  Nov. 
14,  Ritualist)  and  continues  :  “  The  writer  of  this  article  is  connected  with  a  parish, 
whose  practices  are  not  those  which  symbolize  erroneous  doctrines  [Trinity  ?]  and  yet 
his  sober  conviction  is  that  the  boasted  legislation  on  ritualism  amounts  to  nil! 
nil !  The  old  fable  of  the  mountain  laboring,  and  offspring  being  a  mouse.  ” 

xii.  58. 

Nov.  18.  Hitualism  (Cli.  St.)  quotes:  “Bishop  Odenheimer  held  an  ordina¬ 
tion  on  the  morning  of  All  Saints  Day. . .  .The  opening  service  included  a  proces¬ 
sion  composed  of  a  Crucifer  with  purple  cassock,  the  choir  of  boys  in  blue  cassocks 
and  white  ruffled  collars,  and  acolyte  in  scarlet  cassock. . .  .The  altar  was  adorned 
with  a  profusion  of  flowers  and  lighted  candles,  and  hung  with  a  richly  embroidered 


white  cloth . xii.  58. 

Nov.  18.  Church  and  State  quoted . ii.  Dec.  16  ;  xiii.  10. 


Nov.  25.  Sacerdotal  principle  (Ch.  St.)  The  Bishop  of  Lincoln  has  replied 
to  Lord  Coleridge,  who  recently  made  an  address  at  Exeter  Hall.  The  Chief  Justice 
said:  “  That  it  was  idle  to  think  that  the  Public  Worship  Act  would  not  before 


CHAPTER  III. 


79 


November  25,  1874. 

long  alter  the  legal  position  of  tlie  Church.  It  could  not  he  denied  that  the  sacer¬ 
dotal  principle  was  to  he  found  in  portions  of  the  Prayer  Book,  such  as  the  Ordina¬ 
tion  Service,  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  and  the  Order  for  the  administration  of  the 
Holy  Communion.” . xii.  20. 

Nov.  25.  Ritualism  (Ch.  St.)  The  Bishop  of  Manchester  said. . . lie  did  not 
remember  any  ministerial  act  in  the  New  Testament  to  which  the  word  ‘  Sacrifice’ 
was  applied.  How  any  one  could  say  by  any  process  of  reasoning  that  the  offering 
up  bread  and  wine  was  the  same  as  offering  up  Christ,  he  could  not  for  one  moment 
comprehend.” . xi.  2. 

Nov.  25.  Return  of  the  R.  E.  C.  to  the  P.  E.  C.  (Ch.  St.)  says  the  Working 
Church,  suggests  this  as  a  future  contingency . xi.;  xii.  25-59;  xiii.;  xiv. 

Nov.  25.  Low  Church  (Ch.  St.)  Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  of  Trinity, 
Newark,  gave  in  his  resignation  on  Nov.  18,  1874.  He  says  :  “  The  Church  prin¬ 
ciples  now  so  universally  believed  and  taught,  and  which  were  re-affirmed  by  the 
late  General  Convention  with  an  unwonted  emphasis,  are,  in  my  judgment,  not  only 
Scripturally  untrue,  but  also  (I  mean  no  offense)  deeply  dishonoring  to  the  Lord 
and  Master,  and  especially  so  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  long  as  I  am  in  the  ministry, 
I  must  in  my  conscience  oppose  the  Churchmanship  which  yet  I  will  continue  to 
hear  proclaimed.  But  I  do  not  wish,  and  indeed  it  would  be  useless,  to  be  always 
fighting  for  a  forlorn  hope.  The  General  Convention  has  made  tenfold  more  in¬ 
tense  the  anti-Protestant  errors  of  the  now  prevailing  Churchmanship  ;  and  never 
till  there  is  a  revised  Prayer  Book  can  such  errors  be  counteracted.  But  of  that 
there  is  no  hope.” . xi.  26. 

Dec.  9.  Baptismal  Regeneration  (Epis.)  “A  Presbyter”  says:  “For  the 
proposed  amendment,  only  five  dioceses  voted  for  it,  one  only  unanimously,  while 
old  conservative  Evangelical  Pennsylvania  said  Nay. . .  .It  developed  the  fact  that 
whatever  be  the  doctrine  of  our  Articles,  the  vast  majority  of  the  clergy  are 
committed  to  the  highest _ idea  of  regeneration  in  Baptism.”  iii.  Oct.  81;  xii.  56,  58. 

Dec.  12.  “Impartiality.”  (Churchman),  Rev.  James  Craik,  D.D.,  President  of 
the  House  of  Deputies  in  1874  [and  previously]  said  in  his  late  sermon  :  “  But  a 
far  more  solemn  and  emphatic  condemnation  of  this  virtual  revival  of  an  exploded 
Pagan  theory  [Eucharistic  Adoration]  was  given  by  the  refusal  of  the  House .  of 

Deputies  to  confirm  Dr.  Seymour  as  Bishop  of  Illinois - To  show  the  equal 

j  ustice  of  that  House,  and  the  impartiality  with  which  this  principle  was  applied, 
we  need  only  look  to  the  case  of  the  gentleman  nominated  to  us  as  Missionary 
Bishop  to  China. . .  .Evidence  was  unexpectedly  introduced  seeming  to  prove  that 
the  Presbyter  did  not  believe  in  the  office  to  which  he  had  been  nominated. 
Upon  this  evidence  it  was  evident  that  he  would  have  been  promptly  rejected.” 

xii.  56. 

Dec.  16.  Divided  House.  (Epis.)  A  communicant  of  Trinity,  P.  E.  C.,  New¬ 
ark,  N.  J.,  sends  the  following  extract  from  the  Newark  Register  of  Dec.  1,  referring 
to  Dr.  Nicholson  leaving  the  P.  E.  C. :  “  Our  Church  is. . .  .canonically  married  to 

two  systems,  and  all  the  evils  attending  the  system  will  necessarily  continue  to 
develop  and  bring  forth  evil  fruit.”  Also  “  One  from  Trinity,”  says  that  Trinity  has 
“  a  small  High  Church  party,  though  why  they  are  so  it  is  difficult  to  imagine,  for 
almost  without  an  exception  they  have' all  been  born  and  educated  in  oilier  denom¬ 
inations.”  [The  reason  is  plain  enough,  They,  like  the  Quaker  Bishop  Potter,  and 


80 


CHAPTER  III. 


December  16,  1874. 

tlie  Presbyterian  Bishop  Coxe,  did  not  find  other  denominations  “  High  ”  enough 
for  them.] . * . xii.  25,  58. 

Dec.  16.  Low  Church.  (Epis.)  Rev.  W.  M.  Postleth waite  on  leaving  the  P.  E. 

C.  writes  to  Bishop  Potter,  dated  Dec.  3  : - “  It  is  hard  to  leave  the  Church  of  one’s 

birth  and  choice.  However,  I  feel  constrained  to  do  so  on  account  of  the  errors 
now  held  and  proclaimed  with  impunity  throughout  this  Church.  Not  only  so, 
but  especially  since  those  very  errors  are  claimed  by  a  large  majority  of  the  clergy, 
to  be  the  doctrines  of  this  Church. . .  .This  Church  holds  and  teaches  spiritual  re¬ 
generation  in  baptism  with  water. . .  .Any  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book. . .  .is  not  to 
be  hoped  for.” . xi.  26;  iii.  Dec.  24, 1874. 

Dec.  16.  Low  Church.  (Epis.)  “  Presbyter  of  the  P.  E.  C.  Church  ”  says : 

The  Standard  of  the  Cross. . .  .takes  comfort  in  the  thought  that  at  the  recent 
General  Convention  the  door  was  ‘  shut  gently ’  against  the  Evangelical 
Petitioners,  not  slammed  and  bolted  as  it  was  three  years  ago.” . xii.  56. 

Dec.  23.  Low  Church  (Epis.)  “  And  so  we  went  toward  Rome.”  “  Sermon 
(in  full)  preached  before  Christ  Church,  Macon,  Ga.,  Nov.  22,  1874,  by  Rev.  Benja¬ 
min  Johnson,  rector . The  various  sections  of  Christ’s  grand  army  of  believers 

are  drawing  nearer  to  each  other . The  vast  Protestant  gathering  last  year  in 

New  York  proved  how  very  near  in  truth  and  spirit  all  Bible  Christians  are. . . . 
This  is  the  Protestant  movement. ...  Strongholds  of  Romanism  are  feeling  this 
Protestant  drift. ..  .There  is  another  movement. ..  .towards  unity — the  so-called 

‘Catholic’  movement.  It  is  shaped  and  modified  by  traditions .  A  movement 

whose  end  is  external  uniformity,  its  central  principle  of  cohesion  the  dogma  of  the 
Apostolic  Succession ‘ Protestanism ’ — ‘  Catholicism ,’ — these  two  distinct  con¬ 
tinents  of  organized  opinion  and  belief;  an  ocean,  deeper,  wider  than  the  Atlantic 

rolling  between, _ these.... who  believe  because  others  have  believed  ‘always 

everywhere  ’. . .  .the  ‘  Catholics  ’  of  our  era  with  their  materialized  Christianity. . . . 
Who  were  the  Fathers  that  they  should  assume  co-ordinate  authority  over  our 
faith  with  this  infallible  Word  ?... .  The  conservatism  which  plays  false  to  both 
these  great  systems  of  thought  and  faith,  which  'attempts  to  believe  these  two 
creeds  with  all  their  irreconcilable  opposites,  must  break  down  and  give  way. ... 
Protestant  or  Roman  then  ?  This  is  the  question.  Interpreted  by  its  recent  Gen¬ 
eral  Convention  how  stands  the  P.  E.  C.  ?. . .  .We  have  only  increased  Episcopal 
prerogative  and  churches  of  St.  Albans,  St.  Mary,  St.  Sacrament  may  spring  up  ad 
libitum,  and  none  will  be  refused  admission  into  the  New  York  Convention  !... . 
Rev.  Dr.  Adams. . .  .tells  us,  aud  the  General  Convention  endorsed  him,  ‘  Regener¬ 
ation  takes  place  in  and  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism.  The  man’s  sins  are  then 
all  forgiven.  The  vital  principle  of  a  new  life,  the  gift  of  Christ  is  then  and  there 
implanted  in  him.  It  is  a  supernatural  and  spiritual  change.’. . . .  Thus  link  after 
link  has  been  broken  that  bound  our  Protestant  Church  to  the  confidence  and  sym¬ 
pathy  of  the  Protestant  world. . . .  Alas  !  to  lose  this. . .  .for  the  new  scheme  now 
taking  shape,  the  union  of  all  Churches  of  the  Apostolic  Succession  as  a  material 
equipoise  to  the  vast  body  of  Protestantism  beyond  us.... The  Patriarch  Isadore 
writes  in  the  name  of  his  ‘  Holy  Synod’  to  our  Convention,  that  ‘a  previous  agree¬ 
ment  in  faith  is  absolutely  necessary  to  a  mutual  pacticipation  in  the  Sacra¬ 
ments.’.  ...  No  Grecian  bend  or  Romish  twist  shall  be  discovered  here.”. . .  .xi.  26. 

Dec.  24.  Low  Church.  (Obs.)  Rev.  W.  M.  Postlethwaite  at  Newark,  gave  his 


CHAPTER  III. 


81 


December  24,  1874. 

reasons  for  leaving  the  P.  E.  C. :  “  I  have  left  Ecclesiasticism,  Sacerdotalism, 

Sectarianism,  Romanism,  and  Sacramentarianism.” . Dec.  10,  1874;  xi.  26. 

Dec.  25.  Midnight  Mass  (Trib.)  “  First  celebration  of  the  day  in  St.  Ignatius’ 
(Ritualistic)  Church — an  impressive  ceremony. ..  .claimed  to  be  strictly  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  P.  E.  C.  formularies  and  Canon.  Six  years  ago  they  would  have  been 
regarded  as  extremely  Ritualistic  ;  since  then,  however,  the  ceremonial  wave  has 
swept  up  to  and  gone  beyond  the  Episcopal  rite,  as  illustrated  at  St.  Ignatius’.”. . . . 
“  The  Rev.  Professor  Hall,  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  preached  an  ap¬ 
propriate  sermon,”  etc.,  etc. . . . . xii.  56,  58. 

Dec.  80.  High  Church  (Cli.  St.)  “  Manning  on  Bishops :  I  love  to  act  in  the 
sight  of  my  Bishop,  as  if  I  was,  as  it  were,  in  the  sight  of  God.  I  was  strict  in  ob¬ 
serving  my  clerical  engagements,  not  only  because  they  were  my  engagements,  but 
because  I  considered  myself  simply  as  the  servant  and  instrument  of  my  Bishop. 
My  own  Bishop  was  my  Pope  ;  I  knew  no  other,  the  successor  of  the  Apostles,  the 
Vicar  of  Christ” . xii.  5S. 

Dec.  30.  Low  Church  (Ch.  St.)  Upwards  of  56,000  signatures  have  been  re¬ 
ceived  for  the  memorial  to  the  Queen  and  Archbishops  against  the  legalizing  of  the 
Eucharistic  Vestments  and  the  Eastward  Position . . . xii.  58. 

Dec.  30.  Parties  (Ch.  St.)  A  church  at  Denbigh,  England,  was  recently 
closed  by  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  on  account  of  a  reredos  placed  in  it.  Another  is 
being  placed  in  a  church  in  London — St.  Augustine — at  a  cost  of  £1,300. . .  xii.  58. 

Dec.  30.  Church  Infants  (Ch.  St.)  “  At  the  request  of  the  Standing  Com¬ 
mittee  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Welles,  Bishop  of  Wisconsin,  has 
prepared  the  following  form  of  prayer  for  a  diocese  with  a  vacant  Episcopate.”  [The 
R.  E.  C.  assumes  that  the  clergy  can  do  this] . xi.  43. 

Dec.  31.  Toronto  Parties  ( Toronto  Globe ,  Can.)  On  Dec.  30,  the  Bishop  of 
Toronto  delivered  this  charge  at  a  visitation  of  the  clergy,  agaiust  the  “  Church  As¬ 
sociation,”  a  Low  Church  society  similar  to  the  E.  K.  S.  of  the  P.  E.  C.  :  “  The 
great  body  of  the  clergy  of  this  diocese  have  been  charged  with  false  and  un- 
scriptural  teaching  by  a  considerable  number  of  clergymen  and  laymen,  designat¬ 
ing  themselves  as  the  ‘  Church  Association  of  the  Diocese  of  Toronto  ’. . .  .The  name 
Protestant  never  occurs  in  our  authorized  formularies  ;  it  is  never  used  in  the 
description  of  our  Church  ;  it  is  never  introduced  in  connection  with  our  Rational 
Church  in  our  acts  of  Parliament.  Its  true  designation  was  always  felt  to  be  the 
Church  of  England,  a  genuine,  veritable  branch  of  the  Catholic  Church  throughout 

the  world,  (xiii.  17;  xvii.  2) - Let  me  address  those  who - are  withholding 

obedience  from  the  manifest  requirements  of  the  Church. . .  /  No  man  shall  be  ac¬ 
counted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon. . .  .except  he  be  called, 
tried,  examined,  and  admitted  thereto ....  or  hath  had  formerly  Episcopal  consecration 
or  ordination’ ...  .And  if  Episcopal  ordination  is  in  her  judgment  necessary,  an 
Episcopal  Succession  as  a  logical  sequence  is  equally  necessary. . .  .Painful  then  is 
it. . .  .to  see  any. . .  .few  though  they  may  be  in  number,  impugning  a  leading  and 
essential  principle  of  the  Church. . .  .The  mission  of  the  Church  is  to  promote 
social  peace  and  order. ..  .This  purpose. ..  .is  greviously  violated  if  there  be  in¬ 
dustrious  diffusion  of  calumnious  accusation  and  uncharitable  insinuation ... . 
When  bitterness  prevails  and  strife  is  active,  there  will  be  a  speedy  lowering,  and 
at  last  the  extinction  of  pure  spiritual  life.”  Then  followed  a  discussion  about 


82 


CHAPTER  III. 


December  31,  1874. 

trust  funds.  Then  the  wardens  of  St.  Philip's,  Weston,  presented  their  clergyman, 
that  “  when  administering  the  Holy  Communion  placed  himself  in  the  position  of  a 
sacrificing  priest,  turned  his  back  to  the  people,  elevated  the  elements,  turned  his 
face  to  the  people,  made  the  sign  of  the  cross  twice  over  the  head  of  each  com¬ 
municant,  etc.  On  the  27th  inst.  he  also  preached  against  Protestantism.  The 
church- wardens  intimated  their  intention,  if  nothing  was  done  to  put  a  stop  to  these 
practices,  to  close  the  doors  on  Sunday,  the  10th  of  January.”  Then  “  Rural  Dean 
Geddes. . .  .presented,  in  the  name  of  the  several  Rural  Deans,  the  following  gentle¬ 
men,  and  charged  them,  as  members  of  the  Church  Association,  with  depraving  the 
government  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  viz. :  The  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Toronto, 
the  Rev.  Rural  Deans  Givens  and  Stewart,  the  Rev.  Dr.  O’Meara,  the  Rev.  Alexander 
Samson,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Boddy,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Chicldey. . .  .Rev.  Septimus  Jones 
inquired  upon  what  principle  the  selection  of  these  members  of  the  Church  Asso¬ 
ciation  had  been  made. . .  .His  Lordship  considered  the  case  one  of  sufficient  gravity 
to  induce  him  to  issue  a  commission  appointing  an  investigation  of  the  charges. 
This  concluded  the  business” . xii.  58. 

Jan.  7,  1875.  Parties  Violent  (Obs.)  Editor  says  :  “  State  of  feeling  in  the 
Church.  The  Church  Journal  deplores  the  manner  in  which  the  great  controversy 
is  carried  on  in  the  Church,  and  says:  ‘We  wish  to  speak  moderately,  and  we  are 
speaking  very  moderately  when  we  say  that  the  way  clergymen  and  laymen  have  in 
some  instances  of  late  used  the  public  press  in  the  matter  of  Episcopal  candidacies 
and  elections  has  done  more  harm  to  the  Church  and  the  public  than  some  of  them 
are  ever  likely  to  atone  for  by  any  good  they  will  do  to  either.  The  outrages  upon 
propriety,  upon  the  decent  reserve  of  other  people's  nafines,  characters,  and  lives,  the 
petulent  abuse,  the  childish  passions,  the  absence  of  decorum  and  dignity  exhibited 
in  discussions  carried  on  sometimes  by  clergymen  in  the  lowest  specimen  of 
the  daily  paper  in  their  neighborhood,  over  the  question  of  an  Episcopal  elec¬ 
tion,  suggests  grave  doubts  whether  the  method  of  popular  election  is  not  a  mis¬ 
take,  and  whether  the  Church  was  not  wise  in  allowing  the  power  to  drop  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  clergy  and  people  at  an  early  date.  Certainly  the  Church  has  been 
shamed  among  the  people,  her  dignity  and  prestige  lowered  by  the  course  referred 
to  ;  and  the  office  round  which  she  has  thrown  such  guards  has  been  made  cheap" 
and  contemptible  in  the  eyes  of  the  community  by  those  who  claim  to  esteem  it  the 
highest  office  on  earth  ” . . .  . .  .ii.  Jan.  7, 1875  ;  xii.  56,  58. 

Jan.  8.  Toronto  Parties  {Toronto  Globe).  A  letter  from  thirteen  lay  members 
of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Church  Association,  in  reply  to  the  Bishop’s 

charge  (Dec.  31,  above) : _ “We  will  not  here  discuss  either  the  propriety  or  the 

justice  of  dismissing  a  Synod  of  the  Diocese,  of  which  a  number  of  delegates,  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Association,  were  among  its  lay  members  ;  and  immediately  thereafter 
proceeding  to  review  their  action  at  a  meeting  from  which  they  were  excluded 
even  as  lookers-on. . .  .We  beg  leave  to  reply  in  the  only  way  left  open  to  us. . . . 
Apostolic  Succession.  . . .  As  laymen,  we  can  attach  little  value  to  an  idea  that  would 
deny  the  characteristics  of  a  true  Church  of  Christ  to  the  martyred  confessors  of 
the  Waldensian  and  Albigensian  Churches,  while  it  accredits  their  bloody  persecu¬ 
tors  with  the  exclusive  heritage  of  that  assumed  requisite  of  the  One  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church.”  They  then  state  facts  to  show  that  Trinity  College  is  a  mere 
name  in  comparison  with  Knox  College  of  the  Presbyterians ;  that  the  Christian's 


CHAPTER  III. 


83 


January  8,  1875. 

Manual,  “  with  your  Lordship’s  permission  and  approval,”  is  thoroughly  ritualistic. 
Then  other  ritualistic  books,  “  and  we  do  not  ‘  insinuate,’  hut  say  plainly  and 
explicitly  that  any  college  where  such  theology  is  taught  ‘  is  an  unsafe  institution 
for  the  religious  training  of  young  men,  and  especially  of  aspirants  to  the  minis¬ 
try.’  ”  There  is  much  more  which  appears  to  show  that  the  Bishop  makes  no  effort 

to  stop  ritualism,  if  he  does  not  favor  it . xii.  58 

Jan.  13.  Independent  Churches  (Epis.)  Church  and  State  says:  “  By  con¬ 
sent  of  a  majority  of  the  Bishops  an  episcopate  may  be  given  to  organized  relig¬ 
ious  bodies  not  in  the  United  States,  which. . .  .shall  be  independent  of,  though  in 
communion  with,  this  Church.  A  flourishing  church  has  now  grown  up  in  the 
Republic  of  Hayti.  The  House  of  Bishops  has  taken  such  action  that  upon  the 
choice  by  that  Church  of  a  Bishop,  he  shall  receive  consecration.  The  Republic 
of  Mexico.  . .  .There  is  there  a  very  important  movement,  Old  Catholic  in  its  char¬ 
acter.  . .  .Rev.  Dr.  Riley  left  for  Mexico  on  the  8th  of  January,  from  New  Orleans 

. . .  .Bishop  Lee,  of  Delaware. . .  .and  Rev.  Dr.  Dyer. . .  .expect  to  sail _ on  80th 

inst.” . . . xi.  48. 

Jan.  14.  Toronto  Parties  ( Toronto  Globe).  Letter  of  the  Bishop  to  Chief 
Justice  Draper  and  other  members  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Church 

Association _ “  The  letter  you  addressed  to  me  was  received. . .  .7th  inst. . .  .1  shall 

not  attempt  a  defense  of  Trinity  College  from  the  imputations  thrown  so  inconsid¬ 
erately  and  untruthfully  upon  its  theological  teaching. . .  .culled  with  more  astute¬ 
ness  than  honesty.”  He  then  objects  to  their  account  of  the  ritualism  taught  in 
the  book  referred  to,  and  says:  “....  compare. ..  .with  the  wretchedly  garbled 
extract  you  have  placed  before  them. . .  .In  reference  to  what  is  so  relentlessly  and 

unfairly  asserted” . xii.  58 

Jan.  16.  Toronto  Parties  {Toronto  Globe).  “Reply  of  the  Church  Associa¬ 
tion.  . .  .They  receive  from  your  Lordship  a  letter  dwelling  in  detail  on  points  which 
they  have  not  even  alluded  to. . .  .while  leaving  unnoticed  the  real  evil.  . .  .the  con¬ 
nection  between  an  excess  in  ritualistic  ceremonial  and  grave  doctrinal  errors.... 
Their  words  were  an  expression  of  grief  and  astonishment  at  the  restoration  of  a 
clergyman  convicted,  at  so  recent  a  date,  of  teaching  the  grossest  Romish  super¬ 
stition  in  connection  with  the  ‘  Confraternity  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament.’  ”..  .xii.  58. 

Jan.  27.  Lay  Ritualists  in  England  (Ch.  St.)  Parishioners  of  St.  Mary’s, 
Soho,  complain  to  the  Bishop  of  London  that  the  new  rector  omits  the  “  Eastward 

position,  vestments,  and  altar  lights.” . xii.  58. 

Jan.  27.  Isolation  (Ch.  St.)  The  (St.  N.)  asks :  “  Have  we  considered  whether 
we,  dwelling  in  our  isolation,  were  not  the  cause  of  a  good  deal  of  the  loose,  frag¬ 
mentary  Christian  life  which  so  marks  this  age  ?” . xii.  42. 

Eeb.  3.  Protestant  Pope  (Epis.)  The  Civil  Court  of  Illinois  having  refused 
to  eject  Bishop  Cheney  from  his  church  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  canonically 
deposed,  the  Hartford  Churchman  “  took  the  ground  that  irregularities  and  infor¬ 
malities  on  the  part  of  a  Bishop,  nowise  affect  the  validity  of  his  decisions.  . .  .That 

a  Bishop  can  unfrock  a  clergyman,  law  or  no  law.” . xiii.  13- 

Feb.  4.  Illinois  (Obs.)  “  The  Church  Journal,  speaking  of  the  man  described  as 
essential  for  the  Bishopric  of  Illinois,  says  :  ‘  If  Illinois  deliberately  appropriates  to 
her  own  sole  use  and  behoof  all  the  gifts  and  graces  in  the  Church  of  God,  what 
shall  the  rest  of  us  do  for  Bishops  or  even  for  Priests  or  Deacons  ?’  ” . xii.  58. 


CHAPTER  III. 


84 

February  4,  1875. 

Feb.  4.  General  Seminary  (Obs.)  Tlie  Church  Journal  says :  “  It  seems  to 
our  bumble  capacity  as  if  newspaper  articles  and  further  ‘vigorous  pamphlets’ 
were  scarcely  called  for,  and  that  what  is  needed  is  a  calm,  full  statement  and  con¬ 
clusion,  by  some  proper  authorities  (if  there  be  such)  of  the  Seminary,  to  satisfy 
the  mind  of  the  Church  and  give  it  the  confidence  it  ought  to  have  in  an  institu¬ 
tion  for  which  the  whole  Church  is  responsible.” .  xii.  56. 

Feb.  5.  De  Koven,  Bishop  (Trib.)  of  Illinois  on  Feb.  4,  on  third  ballot  by  89 
clerical  to  27  for  Leeds  and  1  for  Fulton.  Accepted  by  lay  31  to  28  and  1  divided. 

xii.  58. 

Feb.  6.  Gen.  Con.  censured  (Trib.)  by  Illinois  Convention  “  for  constituting 
itself  a  court  to  judge  of  Dr.  Seymour’s  right  to  accept  the  position  of  Bishop  of 
this  diocese,  the  resolution  affirming  that  any  churchman  in  good  standing  is  eligi¬ 
ble  if  chosen  by  any  diocese.  ...A  resolution  referring  it  to  the  Church  at  large 
. . .  .was  adopted.” . xii.  58. 

Feb.  6.  Coleman  refuses  (Trib.)  “  Toledo,  Feb.  5.  The  Rev.  Leighton  Cole¬ 
man  has  formally  declined  the  Episcopate  of  the  Northern  Wisconsin  Diocese,  to 
which  he  was  recently  elected.” . iii.  Feb.  18,  1874,  Ritualist ;  xii.  58. 

Feb.  8.  Jaggar  and  De  Koven  (Trib.)  Editor  begins  with  the  heading,  “  A 
Comprehensive  Episcopate — A  remarkable  letter  from  a  High-Churchman — The 
confirmation  of  a  Low  Church  Bishop  urged — Dr.  Jaggar’s  expressions  of  sympa¬ 
thy  for  Mr.  Cheney,  and  subsequent  repudiation  of  the  Cummins  movement — a 
novel  species  of  retaliation.’’  This  in  quotation  marks  is  the  Tribune's  heading  to 
the  letter  of  “  Rev.  J.  H.  Hopkins,  Plattsburg,  Feb.  4, 1875,”  who  said  some  years  ago, 
“  that  the  last  Low-Church  Bishop  had  been  elected  (Epis.  Feb.  10, 1875).  He  says 
that  the  sympathy  expressed  by  Mr.  Jaggar  for  Mr.  Cheney  would  have  prevented 
his  vote,  but  not  his  confirming  a  vote,  and  it  was  “  more  than  ‘  three  years  last 
past  .  .Any  one  who  is  orthodox  enough  to  be  a  priest,  is  orthodox  enough  to 
be  a  bishop  if  elected. ..  .A  comprehensive  Church  must  necessarily  be  a  Church 
embracing  wide  varieties  of  opinion  and  action  . .  .Nothing  would  give  me  greater 
pleasure  than  to  see  that  High  Churchmen  had  forgiven  the  injustice  of  last  Octo¬ 
ber  to  the  Bishop-elect  of  Illinois  by  their  unanimous  confirmation  of  the  Bishop- 
elect  of  Southern  Ohio.”  [Does  he  confine  the  term  “  High-Church”  to  Ritualists?] 

xi.  21,  22  ;  Dec.l,  1873.  Card  ;  xii.  25,  58  ;  x,  15. 

Feb.  9.  Church  growth  decreasing  (Trib.)  Rev.  Hugh  Miller  Thompson 
of  Christ  Church  [editor  of  Church  Journal ]  at  a  conference  of  the  clergy  of  the 
Episcopal  Churches  of  this  city  and  vicinity,  said. . . .“  He  was  not  discouraged  at 
the  position  of  the  Church,  but  he  thought  it  had  not  grown  in  proportion  as  the 
population  of  the  country  had  increased.  He  attributed  this  condition  of  things  to 
two  causes :  First,  to  the  prevalent  opinion  among  the  American  people  that  tLe 
Episcopal  Church  was  drifting  toward  Romanism  ;  and,  second,  to  the  divisions  in 
the  Church  itself  and  the  difference  of  views  in  the  manner  of  worship.  ’’  Some  of 
the  gentlemen. . .  .took  exception  to  Dr.  Thompson’s  views,  and  the  same  topic  was 
assigned  for  the  next  meeting . xii.  45. 

Feb.  10.  De  Koven,  Bishop  (Trib.)  heads  its  report  enlarging  that  of  Feb.  6, 
thus:  “  The  House  of  Deputies  called  to  task  by  a  Diocesan  Convention — Election 
of  Bishop  De  Koven  in  Illinois.  The  House  of  Deputies  in  the  attitude  of  an 
ecclesiastical  court  pronouncing  a  sentence  of  Judicial  condemnation  on  Prof.  Sey- 


CHAPTER  III. 


85 


February  10,  1875. 

mour. — The  Bishops  tlie  proper  judges.”  Professor  Seymour  refused  to  allow  his 
name  to  he  used  again,  and  said  :  “  Holding  the  highest  and  most  responsible  office 
which  a  Presbyter  can  occupy,  as  representing  the  whole  Church  in  presiding 
over  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  I  allowed  my  name  to  go  before  the 
General  Convention  as  Bishop- elect  ”.  The  vote  of  censure  (above  Feb.  6),  says  : 
“  What  the  House  of  Deputies  may  rightfully  do. ..  .the  same  may  the  Standing 
Committees  lawfully  claim _ If  the  Lower  House. ..  .had  the  right...  to  pro¬ 

nounce ‘judicial  condemnation  ’  of  his  supposed  doctrines,  then  45  Standing  Com¬ 
mittees  may. ..  .pronounce  judgment  of  ‘condemnation’  upon  his  supposed  doc¬ 
trines.  The  trial  of  Dr.  Seymour  was  in  secret  session,  without  citation  to  the 
accused  ;  and  he  not  being  allowed. . .  .to  be  present  to  hear  the  accusations  or  to 
confront  the  witnesses. . .  .or  to  have  one  word  of  explanation  ;  nor  yet  even  to  be 
informed. . .  .as  to  the  proceedings  of  the  inquisition.  And  what  must  be  the  tor¬ 
ture  of  our  present  Bishop-elect,  if,  in  place  of  one  inquisition  he  must  pass  the  or¬ 
deal  of  45  V  The  theory  of  the  House  of  Deputies. . .  .is  a  ‘  system  of  centralization  in 
the  Church,  as  dangerous  as  it  is  odious  ’. . .  .The  House  of  Deputies  and  the  Stand¬ 
ing  Committees  are  composed  in  part  of  laymen. ..  .Every  man  is  entitled  to  be 
tried  by  his  peers. . .  .not  by  his  inferiors. . .  .Neither  the  House  of  Deputies,  nor 
the  Standing  Committees. ..  .have  any  right  to  determine  that  he  who  holds  to 
the  words  and  doctrines  even  of  this  extreme  formula  is  justly  liable  to  evil  report  for 
error  in  religion  ;  nor  yet  have  they  any  authority  to  hold  that  the  very  lowest  view 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist  down  to  the  very  verge  of  Zwinglianism  involves  ‘error  in 
religion  by  reason  whereof  they  may  refuse  the  required  certificate  to  a  Bishop- 
elect  .  .The  idea  of  such  authority. . .  .would  leave  the  Bishop  elect  at  the  mercy 
of  the  laity,  even  on  a  question  of  doctrine.”  . xii.  25,  58  ;  xi.  22. 

Feb.  10.  Jaggar’s  Sympathy  for  Cheney  in  1871.  The  Episcopalian  gives 
this  circular  (xi.  1G)  only,  and  referring  to  (iii.  Feb  8,  Jaggar  and  De  Koven)  says  : 
“  It  certainly  appears  strange  to  us  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hopkins,  who  said,  some  years 
ago,  that  ‘  the  last  Low  Church  Bishop  had  been  elected,’  and  whose  surmise  or 
prophecy  has  been  so  remarkably  fulfilled,  up  to  the  election  of  Dr.  Jaggar,  should 
now  come  forward  and  use  his  influence  to  secure  the  placing  of  a  conservative 
Low  Churchman  in  office. . .  .There  is  another  successful  candidate  to  pass  the  same 
ordeal,  and  that  is  Dr.  De  Koven. . .  .It  is  freely  speculated  and  calculated  that  Dr. 
Jaggar  will  pull  in  Dr.  De  Koven,  or  that  Dr.  De  Koven  will  pull  in  Dr.  Jaggar.  . . . 
These  clergymen  are  representatives  of  doctrinal  systems,  radically  and  essentially 
and  fundamentally  opposed  and  contrasted. . .  .No  man  should  decide  between  them 
except  on  purely  conscientious  grounds  ” . xii.  25,  58;  xi,  22. 

Feb.  10.  Hitualism  (Epis.)  In  Maryland  the  Standing  Committee  has  pre¬ 
sented  the  Rev.  Joseph  Richey,  rector,  and  Rev.  G.  B.  Perry,  assistant  rector,  of 
Mount  Calvary  Church,  on  the  charge  of  using  prayers  for  the  dead,  involving  the 
doctrine  of  purgatory,  etc . xii.  58. 

Feb.  10,  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson  (Epis.)  (iii.  Feb.  25,  1875;  April  1). 

Feb.  10.  Log  Rolling  (Ch.  St.)  Editor  says:  “  The  election  of  Dr.  Jaguar  to 
the  Episcopate  of  Southern  Ohio  has  been  followed  by  that  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  De 
Koven  to  the  Episcopate  of  Illinois.  There  were  some  indications  that  objection  might 
be  made  to  the  confirmation  of  Dr.  Jaggar  on  the  ground  of  his  Low  Church  views  ; 
but  since  the  election  of  Dr.  De  Koven,  Dr.  J.  H.  Hopkins  has  published  a  letter  in  the 


86 


CHAPTER  III. 


February  10,  1875. 

Tribune  (Feb.  8),  earnestly  advocating  tlie  confirmation  of  Dr.  Jaggar.  He  does 
not  say  directly  that  what  is  ‘  sauce  for  tlie  goose  is  sauce  for  the  gander.’  He  is 
too  shrewd  for  that ;  but  we  are  led  gently  along  to  the  unexpressed  conclusion, 
that  since  the  Ritualists  are  ready  to  advocate  the  confirmation  of  such  a  Low 
Churchman  as  Dr.  Jaggar,  it  would  be  really  a  sin  and  a  shame  to  oppose  the  con¬ 
firmation  even  of  such  a  Ritualist  as  Dr.  De  Koven.  It  has  been  perfectly  well 
understood,  since  the  rejection  of  Dr.  Seymour,  that  Dr.  De  Koven  would  be  a 
candidate  in  Illinois,  and  that  he  would  probably  be  elected.’’ 

Again  :  “  The  question  of  the  real  comprehensiveness  of  the  Church  is  about  to 
be  brought  home  in  a  very  practical  way  to  the  Bishops  and  Standing  Committees 
_ This  is  the  law  as  it  now  stands. . .  and  a  majority  of  them  must  sign  this  be¬ 
fore  the  Bishop-elect  can  be  consecrated. . .  not  know  or  believe  that  these  are  any 

impediment. ..  .Immorality  is  an  impediment _ false  doctrine. ..  .infirmities  of 

character. ..  .want  of  sound  learning. ..  .disloyalty  to  the  Church. ..  .general 
prejudices. . .  .even  though  not  well  founded  is  an  impediment.  The  Standing 
Committees. . .  .do  not  say  that  the  diocese  electing  him  bears  this  testimony. 
They  must  bear  this  testimony  themselves. . .  .It  has  been  intimated  that  since. . . . 
Dr.  Jaggar  and  Dr.  De  Koven  will  be  before  the  Standing  Committees  at  the  same 
time,  a  compromise  is  likely  to  be  the  result,  by  which  the  confirmation  of  both. . . . 
will  be  secured.  Any  such  bargain  or  compromise  as  this  would  be  simply  atro¬ 
cious. ..  .The  question  is,  whether  the  comprehensiveness  of  the  Church  is  such 
that  the  present  ritualistic  party,  with  its  views  of  Eucharistic  sacrifice  and  Eu¬ 
charistic  adoration,  is  a  legitimate  development  in  the  Church,  in  such  a  sense  as  to 
make  it  desirable  that  it  should  be  represented  in  the  Episcopate. ..  .The  late 
General  Convention  rejecting  Dr.  Seymour  on  the  ground  of  holding  the  very  views 
which  Dr.  De  Koven  is  understood  to  hold ....  [his  confirmation]  would  be  simply 
the  stultifying  the  action  of  this  representative  body  in  the  Church.’’ 

xii.  25,  58 ;  xi.  22. 

Feb.  10.  Church  Growth  (Ch.  St.)  (See  iii.  Feb.  9). 

Feb.  10.  Canada  Parties  (Ch.  St.)  Bishop  Oxenden,  in  Montreal,  claims  “  the 
right  of  preaching  in  the  cathedral  whenever  he  sees  fit,  and  of  inviting  any  one 
whom  he  pleases  to  preach,  whenever  he  may  choose  to  do  so.”  This  claim  the 
rector  resists,  whereupon  the  Bishop  declines  to  present  himself  in  the  cathedral. 
“At  the  same  time  the  Bishop  of  Toronto  is  doing  a  most  unwise  thing  in  proceed¬ 
ing  against  the  members  of  the  Church  Association  in  his  diocese.  This  is  an 
Evangelical  and  Low  Church  society.  The  [ ! !  ]  difficulty  about  this  sort  of  policy 
is  that  it  is  sure  to  build  up  the  Cummins  movement.  Without  some  such  provo¬ 
cative  in  Canada,  it  would  die  out  in  a  fortnight.  With  it,  it  is  likely  to  thrive  and 
multiply” .  xii.  58;  xiii.  10. 

Feb.  11.  De  Koven,  Bishop.  The  Southern  Churchman  says:  “  We  hardly 
know  what  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  means  by  electing  Dr.  De  Koven  as  Bishop 
thereof.  We  suppose  this  diocese  has  not  given  trouble  enough,  and  therefore  de¬ 
sires  to  enlarge  its  ability  of  destructiveness. . .  .Dr.  De  Koven,  the  only  avowed 
Ritualist  and  Romanizer  in  the  late  General  Convention,  received  thirty-nine  cleri¬ 
cal  and  thirty-one  lay  votes.  Whether  the  diocese  elected  him  for  the  ‘  fun  ’  ot  the 
thing,  or  whether  they  were  mad  and  elected  him  for  the  ‘  spite  ’  of  the  thing,  we 
know  not.  ”  [Now  he  is  probably  a  fair  representative  of  the  diocese,  since  accord- 


I 


CHAPTER  HI. 


87 


February  11,  1875. 

ing  to  A.  G.  Tyng,  there  are  more  original  Episcopalians  outside  of  than  inside  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Illinois.] . xii.  25,58. 

Feb.  11.  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson.  The  Southern  Churchman  says  :  “  It  gives 
us  pleasure  to  know  that  the  Rev.  W.  II.  Johnson,  of  South  Carolina,  who  recently 
left  our  Church  to  unite  himself  with  the  movement  inaugurated  by  Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins,  has  withdrawn  from  that  movement  and  returned  to  the  Episcopal  Church. 
Could  we  see  a  sufficient  cause  for  Bishop  Cummins’  act  we  would  not  hesitate  to 
say  so. . .  .We  hope  it  will  not  be  long  before  other  clergymen  will  see  the  mistake 
they  have  made  and  return.” . iii.  Feb.  25,  1875;  April  1;  xiv.  10. 

Feb.  13.  De  Koven.  Parties  (Trib.)  says :  “  Parties  for  and  against  the  con¬ 
secration  of  Dr.  De  Koven,  Bishop-elect  of  Illinois,  are  organizing. ..  .It  was 
urged  that  Bishop  Coxe,  of  Western  New  York,  should  be  asked  to  use  his  influence 
among  the  Standing  Committees.” .  . xii.  58. 

Feb.  15.  De  Koven  Memorial  (Trib.)  “The  opposition _ is  getting  more 

formidable  every  day,  and  nothing  is  left  undone  to  defeat  his  confirmation. . .  .To¬ 
day  in  four  churches  powerful  sermons  were  preached  in  favor  of  his  confirmation, 
and  condemning  in  the  strongest  terms  the  action  of  the  minority  led  by  Drs.  Sul¬ 
livan  and  Powers.”  (xii.  58.) 

Also,  “  A  memorial  has  just  been  printed  in  Chicago,  addressed  to  the  Standing 
Committees. ..  .They  oppose  his  consecration  on  the  grounds:  First,. .. .‘ he  is 
justly  liable  to  evil  report  for  errors  in  religion.’. . .  .Secondly,  that  his  consecration 
will  be  disastrous  to  the  Church;  and  Thirdly,  that  he  ‘  was  not  elected  Bishop  by 
the  Convention  of  the  diocese  agreeably  to  the  rules  fixed  by  the  Convention  of 
that  diocese’. . .  .In  regard  to. . .  .*  want  of  soundness  in  the  faith  ’  [see]  speeches  at 
the  General  Convention  of  1871  and  1874. . .  /  Cathechism  for  Confirmation. . .  .ut¬ 
terances  in  relation  to  the  Lord’s  Supper,  the  Confessional,  the  Virgin  Mary,’  etc. 
....‘we  protest  that  the  adoration  of  Christ  in  the  elements,  Auricular  Confession, 
Prayers  for  the  Dead,  the  Perpetual  Virginity  of  the  Mother  of  the  Lord,  and  Invo¬ 
cation  of  Saints  and  Angels  are  not  doctrines  of  our  Church.’  ” _ “In  regard  to  the 

effect. . .  .*  We  cannot  refrain  from  conveying  to  you  our  apprehensions  as  to  the 
result  in  this  diocese.  Illinois  is  the  battle-ground  of  the  so-called  ‘  Reformed  Epis¬ 
copal  ’  Church.  It  has  here  a  strength  which  we  think  it  possesses  in  no  other 
part  of  the  country,  and  elements  of  growth  which  need  only  development  to 
render  it  formidable.  We  believe  that  the  pursuit  of  a  proper  course  in  the 
election  of  a  Bishop  would  have,  and  would  still  set  bounds  to  the  advance  at  our 
expense  of  this  denomination;  but  if  consent  be  given  to  the  consecration  in  ques¬ 
tion,  we  fear  it  will  receive,  and  within  no  short  period,  alarming  accessions.  The 
departure  of  Dr.  Cummins  has  been  hitherto  earnestly  and  successfully  denounced 
as  unjustifiable  in  every  respect.  If  he  and  his  followers  had  grievances  calling  for 
redress,  full  opportunity  and  scope  existed  within  the  Church  for  redress  to  be 
sought  and  accorded;  but  if  a  pronounced  Ritualist  is  to  be  placed  over  us  as 
Bishop,  the  argument  of  the  supporters  of  Dr.  Cummins  will  be  given  great  advan¬ 
tage  in  the  contention,  for  they  have  always  insisted,  but  without  ability  heretofore 
to  present  the  question  in  provable  shape,  that  our  beloved  Church  had  surren¬ 
dered  to  pseudo-catholicity,  and  that  no  remedy  existed,  save  to  retire  from  its 
communion.  To  consecrate  as  Bishop  of  Illinois  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  move¬ 
ment  to  obscure  the  plain  teachings  of  the  Church  by  importing  into  them  the 


88 


CHAPTER  III. 


February  15,  1875. 

subtleties  of  medievalism  is  to  wrest  our  weapons  from  our  hands  and  to  drive  con¬ 
scientious  laymen  from  the  fold.”  (xii.  58;  xiii.  25.1 

Feb-  17.  Church  of  England  (Epis.)  John  Bright  (the  Quaker  member  of 
Parliament),  in  his  late  speech,  says  :  “  We  have  the  Bill  of  last  year. . .  .Sir  Wil¬ 
liam  Harcourt  says  . .  .that  legislation  of  this  kind  should  only  be  resorted  to  on 
the  greatest  necessity.  He  says  :  ‘  I  am  satisfied  there  is  such  necessity.  In  my 
opinion  the  present  condition  of  things  in  the  Church  of  England  is  simply  intol¬ 
erable.’.  . .  .The  Public  Worship  Bill  of  the  last  session  was  a  trifle. . .  .They  can 
deal  only. . .  .with  vestments  and  millinery,  with  positions,  with  ceremonies.  They 
cannot  touch  the  sermons. . .  .The  State  Church,  as  we  have  it  now,  is  not,  and  can¬ 
not  be,  in  harmony  with  the  age.  I  should  like  to  ask  you  what  there  is  that  was 
established  or  existing  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  that  is  in  harmony  with 
the  reign  of  Queen  Victoria?. . .  .In  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  more  than  half 
of  all  the  ship-owners  of  England,  especially  on  the  Southern  coasts,  were  engaged 
in  piracy,  and  their  ships  were  either  pirate-ships  or  corsairs. . .  .It  is  most  extra¬ 
ordinary  that  a  Church  established  in  an  age  like  that,  should  be  able  in  any  way  to 
continue  itself  in  that  form  as  its  present  form,  into  the  time  in  which  we  live. . . . 
There  is  no  such  thing  known  in  it,  speaking  in  a  general  way,  as  promotion  by 
merit. . .  .One-lialf,  at  least,  of  the  livings  in  the  Church  of  England  are  private 
property,  and  they  may  be,  and  are,  often  bought  and  sold  in  the  open  or  in  the 
secret  maiket. ..  .Sir  William  Harcourt  says:  ‘The  residuary  legatee  of  disestab¬ 
lishment  would  infallibly  be  the  Church  of  Rome.’  Well  ;  but.  then. . .  .the  force 

that  was  intended  to  protect  us,  has  turned  its  guns  against  us - It  is  only  from 

the  hierarchical  and  prelatic  Church,  that  there  are  converts  made  continually  to 
the  Church  of  Rome.” . xii.  18. 

Feb.  17.  Low  Church  (Epis.)  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Howard  Smith’s  resignation  (Feb. 
3)  “To  the  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  St.  John’s  Church,  Knoxville,  Tennessee  : 
Gentlemen:  —  Having,  after  much  prayerful  consideration  and  mental  conflict, 
decided  to  transfer  my  ministerial  office  and  work  to  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church,  I  hereby  tender  my  resignation  of  the  position  of  rector  of  St.  John’s 
Church,  to  take  effect  on  Monday,  8th  inst.  I  will  add  but  a  few  words  in  explana¬ 
tion  of  this  serious  step.  The  rapid  development  and  growth  of  Sacerdotal  and 
Sacramentarian  errors  of  late  years  in  the  P.  E.  C.  have  led  many  serious,  thought¬ 
ful  persons,  clergymen  and  laymen,  to  examine  more  carefully  than  before,  the 
sources  of  these  perversions  of  the  truth.  This  examination  has  led  to  the  wide¬ 
spread  conviction  that,  with  all  its  excellencies,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  retains 
certain  germs  of  error,  which  have  grown  as  a  perverting  influence  into  the  whole 
system  of  belief  and  practice,  in  a  large  majority  of  the  clergy  and  members  of  the 
Church.  This  overwhelming  majority  have  been  thus  educated  into  unscriptural 
views  of  the  ministry  and  the  sacraments.  Many  have  become  deeply  convinced 
that  there  can  be  no  effectual  remedy  for  the  evil  in  question,  without  a  revision 
of  the  Prayer-Book  that  shall  altogether  remove  these  sources  of  error.  The 
impossibility  of  securing  such  a  revision  within  the  Church,  which,  by  severe  pro¬ 
scriptive  legislation,  binds  the  use  of  the  objectionable  offices  upon  her  ministry 
with  despotic  power,  while  she  does  nothing  effectually  to  repress  the  worst  extrav¬ 
agancies  of  Ritualistic  errorists,  have  led  to  the  organization  of  the  R.  E.  C.’’ 

xi.  7,  25,  26i. 


CHAPTER  III. 


89 


February  18,  1875. 

Feb.  18.  Prof.  Seymour  (Independent).  “  Dr  .John  H.  Hopkins  says  that 
Professor  Seymour  f  is  still  left  free  to  instill  his  principles  into  the  inside  of  the  heads 
of  candidates  for  Holy  Orders,  though  (apparently)  pronounced  unfit  to  lay  his 
hands  upon  the  outside  of  the  same.’  ” . .  . xii.  56. 

Feb.  18.  Log  Rolling  (Independent).  “J.  H.  Hopkins,  D.D.,  the  father,  we 
may  say,  of  American  Ritualism,  who  wrote  a  letter  the  other  day  urging  the  con¬ 
firmation  by  the  Bishops  of  the  election  of  Dr.  Jaggar,  an  extreme  Low  Churchman, 
as  Bishop  of  Southern  Ohio,  is  the  same  man  who  years  ago  boasted  that  ‘  the  last 
Low  Church  Bishop  had  been  elected.’  His  father,  Bishop  Hopkins,  it  will  be  re¬ 
membered,  published  one  book  to  prove  that  the  Pope  was  Antichrist,  and  then 
another  in  recantation  of  it.  The  election  of  Dr.  Jaggar  will  probably  be  confirmed 
by  the  Bishops,  just  because  Dr.  De  Koven  is  also  before  them  for  approval.  It  is 
doubtful  if  either  could  be  confirmed  by  himself,  for  however  much  an  Episcopalian 
politician  might  like  to  reject  the  representative  of  the  opposite  school,  he  would 
not  care  to  injure  the  chances  of  the  other  man.  It  will  be  very  much  such  a  case 
as  we  have  before  Congress  sometimes,  when  two  lobbies  join  forces  and  carry  both 
measures.” . xii.  25,  58. 

Feb  18.  Church  of  the  Prayer  Book  (So.  Ch.)  “V’’says:  “Our  Saviour 
in  His  manhood  appealed  to  Holy  Scripture  when  tempted  on  these  occasions  by 
the  devil.  Christ  appealed  to  the  Bible  when  seized  by  the  Church  established  of 
the  Jews  with  their  traditions.  The  Apostles  appealed  to  it  when  seized  by  the 
Church  established  by  the  chief  priests,  scribes,  and  elders.  Wickliffe  and  the  mar¬ 
tyrs  of  the  earth  appealed  to  it  when  seized  by  the  Church  established  of  the 
Popes.  The  martyrs  of  England  appealed  to  it  when  seized  by  the  Church  estab¬ 
lished  by  the  sovereigns  of  England.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  Amer¬ 
ica,  the  Church  established  of  the  Bible,  did  not  seize  Bishop  Cummins  or  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Latane,  but  with  the  loving  spirit  of  St.  John,  allowed  them  the  privilege 
granted  all  her  children  by  the  sixth  of  her  thirty-nine  articles.  But  let  us  be 
watchful  that  our  Church  established  of  the  Bible  become  not  the  Church  estab¬ 
lished  of  the  Prayer  Book.’’ . xii.  14  to  24;  58. 

Feb.  18.  Bishop  De  Koven.  Bribery,  (So.  Ch.)  says  :  “  On  Feb.  6,  a  delegation 
waited  on  Dr.  De  Koven  to  notify  him  of  his  election,  when  he  eulogized  Dr.  Sey¬ 
mour.  A  representative  of  the  Chicago  Times  [a  Whiteliouse  adherent] . . .  .accom¬ 
panied  the  delegation,  telegraphs  that  journal  that  Dr.  De  Koven’s  endorsement  of 
Dr.  Seymour  was  regarded. . .  .as  ill-timed. . .  .Efforts  were  made  to  suppress  a 
report. ..  .Money  was  offered  ‘  for  any  extra  trouble ’...  .in  ‘  arranging  their  re¬ 
ports’.  . .  .On  Sunday _ Dr.  Sullivan  charged  that  the  election  of  Dr.  De  Koven 

had  brought  the  Church  to  the  ‘  verge  of  heresy,  from  which  she  may  easily  topple 
into  Rome  ’. . .  .Illegal  votes  and  other  subterfuges.  Dr.  Powers  entered  a  vigorous 
protest. . .  .declaring  him  *  unfitted  for  the  office  of  Bishop  because  of  his  ritualistic 
leanings,’  and  charged  that f  he  was  elected  by  pettifogging  and  political  craft.’  ” 

xii.  58. 

Feb.  18.  Bishop  De  Koven  (So.  Ch.)  The  Independent  says:  “Dr.  De  Koven, 
after  having  rent  and  torn. . .  .Massachusetts  and  Wisconsin,  has  been  successful  at 
last. . .  .The  Ritualistic  party  has  won  a  triumph  apparently. . .  .We  are  not  sorry, 
therefore,  seeing  that  Illinois  plainly  wants  a  Ritualistic  Bishop,  that  she  has  elected  a 
courageous  one. . ,  .If  a  diocese  lives  for  years  under  a  very  High  Church  prelate. 


90 


CHAPTER  III. 


February  18,  1875. 

and  tlien  twice  chooses  as  advanced  a  divine  for  his  successor,  surely  toleration 
should  permit  her  to  be  let  alone. . .  .Dr.  Hopkins,  as  we  have  pointed  out  before,  is 
really  the  Head-Centre  of  American  Ritualism”. . .  .[lie has]  “  pulled  the  Ritualistic 
wires  with  skill,  and  manipulated  with  dexterity  the  movements  of  far  more  promi¬ 
nent  men.  He  maybe  called  in  a  sense  the  American  Pusey. ..  .His  letter  is  in 
thorough  keeping  with  the  new  doctrine  of  toleration. . .  .The  Ritualists. . .  .can  very 
well  afford  to  yield  a  coat  once  in  a  while  to  a  Church  which  gives  them  three  or 
four  cloaks  in  return  . .  .Members  of  the  last  Diocesan  Convention  have  issued  a 
protest. . .  .First,  as  to  soundness  in  the  faith. . .  .Second,  the  effect. . .  .would  be 
especially  disastrous  in  Illinois,  the  battle-ground  of  the  so-called  R.  E.  C.  To 
consecrate  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  movement,  to  obscure  the  plain  teachings  of 
the  Church,  by  imparting  to  it  the  subtleties  of  medisevalism,  would  be  to  drive 
conscientious  laymen  from  the  field. . .  .Third,  the  invalidity  of  the  election  . .  .The 
number  of  votes  for  Dr.  De  Koven  were  not  enough  to  elect  him” . xii.  58. 

Feb.  18.  Church  Decreasing  (So.  Cli.)  copies  from  Herald  of  Dec.  10,  the  re¬ 
marks  of  Rev.  Hugh  Miller  Thompson,  as  above,  Feb.  9,  from  the  Tribune,  showing 
that  the  P.  E.  C.  is  decreasing  relatively . xii.  45. 

Feb.  20.  Clergy  Decreasing  relatively  (Chn.)  “  R.  B.  D.  in  the  Spirit  of 
Missions  :  One  of  the  Church  almanacs  for  1875,  gives  the  net  increase  of  clergy  in 
the  P.  E.  C.  during  1874  as  only  forty-five  (45),  or  less  than  one  for  each  diocese. 
The  rate  for  the  next  three  years  will,  unless  something  extraordinary  takes  place, 
be  no  more  for  each  year,  for  our  candidates  for  Orders  have  fallen  off  from  402  in 
1871,  to  301  in  1874. . .  .Take  successive  periods  of  nine  years.  . .  .Clergy  in 

This  last  number  (3,387). ..  .is 
reached  by  taking  the  clergy  of 
1874  (3,137),  adding  all  candidates 
for  orders  in  1874  (301),  adding  100 
for  extraordinary. . .  .deducting  150 
for  probable  deaths  from  1874  to 

1877  . “  From  1841  there  has 

at  a  steadily  increasing  ratio.”  It  is  then  shown  that  at  the 
same  rate  as  1823  to  1832  there  should  be  5,333  in  1877,  and  at  the  same  rate  as  1832 
to  1841,  there  should  be  10,555  in  1877.  “  It  may  be  truthfully  said,  we  suppose, 
that  in  the  period  from  1832  to  1841  there  appeared  to  be  no  reasons  why  our 
ministry  should  not  inorease  as  it  was  then  increasing.  But  the  fact  that  a  sudden 
check  was  experienced  and  continues  in  an  increased  ratio  ought  to  give  us  some¬ 
thing  to  think  about  ”  [Puseyism  was  introduced  shortly  after  1841.  See  next  ex¬ 
tract] . xii.  45. 

Feb.  20.  Church  growth  decreasing  (Trib.)  Rev.  Hugh  Miller  Thomp. 
son,  D.D.,  editor  of  the  Church  Journal,  sends  to  the  Tribune  the  following 
letter,  dated  Feb.  18,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Ewer.  His  address  was  printed  (Feb.  9,  Trib.), 
and  in  the  Herald  of  Feb.  10,  copied  into  the  (So.  Ch.)  of  Feb.  18.  He  says ;  “  A  re¬ 
port  of  my  address  was  published  in  one  of  the  newspapers,  much  perverted,  and 
full  of  errors. . .  .so  as  to  give  a  meaning,  the  reverse  in  some  things  of  what  was 
intended.”  [But  I  find  no  error  in  the  extracts  quoted  (iii.  Dec.  9),  so  let  that  stand, 
and  adds]  “  That  she  is  not  growing  as. . .  .Dr.  Ewer  and  myself  would  have  her 
there  is  no  question.  I  am  satisfied  she  never  can  grow  fast  enough  for  either  of 


1814 

1823 

were 

a 

221 

395  increase 

174 

or 

79 

per  cent. 

1832 

tt 

592 

it 

197 

tt 

50 

ft 

1841 

tt 

1052 

6  C 

460 

tt 

78 

ft 

1850 

it 

1558 

ft 

506 

a 

48 

ft 

1859 

tt 

2065 

it 

507 

tt 

33 

I  “ 

1868 

a 

2662 

it 

597 

a 

29 

ft 

1877 

a 

3387 

ft 

725 

tt 

27 

ft 

been  a  falling  off. 


CHAPTER  III. 


91 


February  20,  1875. 

us — of  course  I  mean  the  right  growth.  At  the  same  time  there  is  a  growth  not 
counted  by  numbers,  which  we  both  recognize  as  the  best'  [Ritualism  ?}  But  when 
I  spoke  ot  growth,  I  meant  the  common,  vulgar  growth  which  figures  measure. . . . 
According  to  the  census  from  1850  to  1860,  our  increase  was  686  churches  and  203,698 
sittings — the  difference  between  1,459  churches  in  1850,  and  2,145  in  1860  and  an  in¬ 
crease  in  churches  of  about  46  per  cent,  and  in  sittings  of  30  per  cent.  From  1860 
to  1870  we  increased  from  2,145  churches  to  2,601=456,  and  from  847,296  sittings 
to  991,051  =  142,755,  about  22  per  cent,  of  churches  and  a  little  over  16  per  cent, 
of  sittings.  Here  by  the  census,  the  rate  of  growth  from  1850  to  1860  is  twice  that 
from  1860  to  1870.  Whether  this  growth  keeps  up  relatively  with  an  increase  of 
population  is  of  little  consequence,  though  clearly  it  falls  much  below.” . xii.  45. 

Feb.  24.  Parties  in  Illinois  (Epis.)  by  Louis  Peck,  of  Illinois.  “  The  recent 
Convention. ..  .has  brought  again  prominently.  ..  .the  assertions  of  the. ..  .advo¬ 
cates  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  that  it  is  par  excellence  the  comprehensive  Church _ So  wide 

is  the  gulf  between  the  dissatisfied  ones  and  the  jubilant  friends  of  the  Warden  of 
Racine,  that  they  threaten  if  he  be  consecrated  Bishop,  to  consider  the  propriety  of 
transferring  their  allegiance  to  the  R.  E.  C. !.  . .  .Before  the. . .  .Convention,  we  are 
told  ‘  one  name  suggested  itself,  as  if  by  inspiration,  almost  if  not  quite  unanimous, 
that  of  Dr.  James  De  Koven  ’. . .  .So  let  us  take  heart !  The  Church  in  the  Diocese 
of  Illinois  is  sound  in  the  faith  as  ever !  It  is  catholic,  it  is  comprehensive,  it 
stands  by  the  Prayer  Book,  and  it  recognizes  no  such  terms  as  ‘  High  ’  or  ‘  Low,’ 
‘Ritualistic’  or  ‘  Evangelical.’  We  are  a  loving  band  of  brothers,  united  in  one 
spirit  and  only  desiring  to  be  known  as  ‘  Churchmen.’  But  while  we  are  saying  to 
one  another,  how  sweet  and  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell  together  in  unity, 
the  outside  world  looks  on  with  a  stare  of  astonishment,  and  the  R.  E.  C.  meditates 
over  the  saying  of  a  wise  man,  ‘  it  is  better  to  dwell  in  the  corner  of  a  housetop, 
than  with  a  brawling  woman  in  a  wide  house.”’ . xii.  25,  58  ;  xiii.  25. 

Feb.  24.  Low  Church.  (Epis.)  Rev.  J.  H.  Mac  El’  Rey  gives  his  reasons  for  with¬ 
drawing  from  the  P.  E.  C.  to  join  the  R.  E.  C.  He  speaks  in  the  highest  terms  of 
Bishop  Howe,  to  whom  he  addresses  his  resignation.  He  says  that  he  will  continue 
to  teach  what  he  has  always  taught.  It  is  in  substance  the  same  as  the  letters  of 
resignation  by  others . xi.  26. 

Feb.  25.  Postal  Cards  from  clergy  of  the  P.  E.  C . ii.  ;  xiii.  26. 

Feb.  25.  “  Catholic”  Expressions  (Obs.) . xiii.  10 

Feb.  25.  Low  (So.  Ch.)  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson  in  his  letter  to  (So.  Ch.)  says, 
with  respect  to  his  joining  the  R.  E.  C.  :  “  That  which  actuated  me  most,  was  a 
desire  to  enjoy  greater  liberty  in  my  ministrations,  and  to  be  a  member  of  a  com¬ 
munion  at  peace  within  itself  and  giving  the  utmost  prominence  to  Evangelical 
doctrines. . .  .1  had  been  greatly  troubled  by  certain  matters  ;  and  seeing  that  the 
current  of  feeling  in  the  Church  does  not  at  present  set  in  the  direction  of  relaxa. 
tion  and  concession,  I  reasoned  that  I  would  be  right  in  ridding  myself  of  these 
difficulties  and  restraints  by  casting  my  lot  in  a  communion  in  which  I  knew  that 
they  did  not  exist. . ,  .As  I  see  the  matter  now,  I  sought  my  own  relief  and  peace 

at  the  expense  of  my  duty _ I  had  too  easily  abandoned  the  post  of  duty _ Not 

only  did  I  owe  to  our  Church  all  my  religious  experience,  but  I  was  indebted  to  her 
for  my  training  for  the  ministry. . .  .It  was  she  who  promised  to  sustain  me,  and 
did  sustain  me. . .  .1  was  led  to  realize  the  evil  of  division,  and  the  culpability  of 


92 


CHAPTER  III. 


February  25,  1875. 

needless  division. . .  .1  found  that  the  tendency  of  things  is  to  a  wider  breach 
between  the  old  Church  and  the  new. . .  .Finding. . .  that  I  had  erred. . .  .1  commu¬ 
nicated  to  the  Bishop  of  South  Carolina. . .  .and  requested  him  to  suspend  imme¬ 
diate  action. . .  He  informed  me. . .  .that  he  had  already  pronounced  my  deposition 
. . .  .though  the  letter  was  mailed  two  days  before  the  deposition  took  place. . .  .He 

considered  the  circumstances. ..  .as  affording  just  ground  for  reconsideration. _ 

and  would  confer  with  the  Standing  Committee. . .  .My  withdrawal  from  our  Church 
and  my  return  to  it,  were  both  unsolicited  [italics  his].... I  am  not  abjuring  a 
heresy.  What  my  views  are  to-day,  they  have  always  been.  The  only  point  on 
which  my  mind  has  changed  has  been  as  to  the  duty  of  maintaining  my  views  in 
our  Church  or  out  of  it.”....iii.  April  1,  1875  ;  iii.  Feb.  10,  1875,  Rev.;  Feb.  11, 

Rev. ;  ii.  July  8,  1874,  Diff. ;  xiv.  10  ;  xii.  58. 

Feb.  27.  Ritualism  by  De  Koven  (Chn.)  “  M.’’  gives  the  following  portion 
of  his  speech  in  the  General  Convention  in  1871  :  “  I  want  to  give  anybody  in  this 
house  the  opportunity  of  presenting  me  for  false  doctrine  if  he  wishes;  and  in  order 
to  do  so,  I  choose  some  language  which  is  balder  and  barer  than  I,  myself,  would 
use,  excepting  in  a  company  of  theologians — and  I  use  this  language  for  a  purpose 
which  I  will  explain  presently.  I  believe  in — and  this  will  be  printed  to-morrow, 
and  I  will  write  it  out,  if  necessary,  for  anybody  who  wants  to  use  it — I  believe  in 
the  *  Real  Actual  Presence  of  our  Lord  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine  upon  the 
altars  of  our  churches.’  I,  ‘  myself,  adore,’  and  would,  if  it  were  necessary  or  my 
duty,  ‘  teach  my  people  to  adore  Christ  present  in  the  elements  under  the  form  of 
bread  and  wine,’  and  I  use  these  words  because  they  are  a  bald  statement  of  the 
Real  Presence.’. . .  .The  well-defined  and  clear-cut  doctrine. . .  .in  1871.  . .  .had  be¬ 
come  tangled  and  confused  in  1874.  Plain  and  precise  as  it  was  in  1871,  it  became 
obscure  and  indefinite  in  1874.  With  one  shape,  one  meaning  in  1871. . .  .the  doc¬ 
trine  of  Eucharistic  Adoration  in  1874  was  susceptible  of  division  into  six  shades 
of  interpretation. . .  .This  is  written  by  a  member  of  a  Standing  Committee.” 

iii.  Oct.  26, 1874  ;  xii.  54,  58,  and  next. 

Feb.  27.  Bishop  of  Albany  on  De  Koven  (Chn.)  Bishop  Doane,  in  his  let¬ 
ter  to  the  Churchman,  says :  “  The  use  which  the  Church  Journal  makes  of  this 
Pastoral  [of  1871]  or  this  portion  of  it,  I  utterly  repudiate,  as  bearing  in  any  degree 
upon  the  consistency  of  Bishops  in  consenting  to  the  consecration  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
De  Koven,  in  whose  soundness  in  the  faith  and  sufficiency  of  learning,  I  have  as 
much  confidence  as  I  have  admiration  for  the  dignitv  and  devotedness  of  his  char- 
acter  and  the  rare  ability  and  attractiveness  of  the  man.... Dr.  De  Koven.... in 
1871  used  not  his  own  words  to  express  his  own  opinions,  but  adjudicated  words  of 
an  English  judge  to  express  what  opinion  was  allowed  in  the  Church.”  [So  !] 

xii.  53-55. 

Feb.  27.  Rev.  Dr.  Hopkins  (Trib.)  explains  (Feb.  8):  “That  letter  was  sent 
under  the  date  of  Jan.  26,  the  day  on  which  it  was  written,  to  a  religious  paper 
[Ch.  Jo.  he  says],  and  being  refused  insertion,  ..  .in  your  office  received  the  date 
Feb.  4, . . .  .on  which  Dr.  De  Koven  was  elected. . .  .My  latest  advices  from  Illinois 
indicated  that  Dr.  Leeds  was  the  coming  man.”  “  This  deposition.  . .  June  2,  was 

published  June  3,. . .  .on  the  same  day  [with] - letter  of  sympathy _ This  proves 

that  the  letter  was. . .  .before  deposition. . .  .The  signers  contemplated  only  a  tem¬ 
porary  suspension,”  He  recites  a  number  of  well-known  names  contained  in  the 


CHAPTER  III. 


93 


February  27,  1875. 

list  (xi.  17-19),  and  says:  “  Now  to  single  out  one  clergyman. ..  .and  to  say.... 
lie  shall  not  be  consecrated.  ..  .is  to  proscribe  equally  every  other  man  on  that 
list.” . xi.  16-22  ;  iii.  March  12,  1875  ;  Jaggar. 

Feb.  27.  Growth  of  the  Church  (Trib.)  Rev.  Dr.  F.  C.  Ewer  objects  to  Dr. 
Thompson’s  mode  of  investigation  (Feb.  20),  and  says:  “  We  have  no  full  returns 
of  confirmations  from  1861  to  1865. . .  .Confirmations  1847  to  1852  was  one  in  488 
population — 1853  to  1860  was  one  in  355 — 1869  to  1874  was  one  in  252. 

xii.  45. 

Feb.  27.  Dr.  De  Koven  accepts  (Trib.)  “  Chicago,  Feb.  26. — The  following 
letter  of  acceptance  from  Dr.  De  Koven  w7ill  be  published  for  the  first  time  in  to¬ 
morrow  morning’s  papers:  ‘Racine,  Feb.  15. — To  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chase  and  others. — 
My  Dear  Brethren :  In  reply  to  your  letter  informing  me  of  my  election  to  the 
Bishopric  of  Illinois,  allow  me  to  say,  that  I  hereby  accept  the  office  to  which  the 
diocese  has  elected  me,  and  should  the  Standing  Committees  and  the  Bishops  ap¬ 
prove  the  testimonials  and  consent  to  the  consecration,  I  will,  with  the  help  of  God, 
seek  to  be  your  faithful  and  loving  Bishop. — I  am  respectfully  and  truly  your 
Brother  and  Servant  in  Christ. — James  De  Koven.’  ” . iii.  Feb.  5,  1875. 

March  1.  Brooklyn  (Epis.  of  10th).  Letter  from  “  Reformed  Episcopalian.” — 
“Bropklyn,  Feb.  16,  1875.  Sir:  Will  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jaggar  be  confirmed  by  the 
Standing  Committees  of  the  Episcopal  Church  as  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Southern 
Ohio  ?  Opposition  is  expected  to  the  confirmation  of  Dr.  Jaggar  from  the  fact  of 
his  signing  a  letter  of  sympathy  in  1871,  addressed  to  the  Rev.  Charles  E.  Cheney 
after  the  latter’s  trial  and  deposition  from  the  ministry  of  the  P.  E.  C.  for  omitting 
the  thanksgiving  for  the  regeneration  of  children  in  the  Baptismal  service.  The 
effect  of  this  letter  is  sought  to  be  removed  by  the  fact,  that  in  the  month  of  Nov., 
1873,  Dr.  Jaggar  signed  a  circular  with  others  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  Phila¬ 
delphia  in  opposition  to  the  establishment  of  the  R.  E.  C.  It  is  now  alleged  that 
Dr.  Jaggar  has  more  than  once  expressed  his  regret  to  his  friends  that  he  signed 
the  Philadelphia  circular.  Moreover,  it  is  asserted  that  during  the  present  winter 
a  meeting  was  held  at  Dr.  Jaggar’s  house,  composed  of  Low  Church  clergymen, 
with  a  view  of  issuing  a  protest  on  their  part  against  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic 
Succession.  If  these  statements  be  well  founded,  they  will  greatly  help  the  oppo- 
sers  of  the  consecration  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jaggar.” 

iii.  Feb.  27,  Rev;  March  12,  Jaggar;  xi.  21,  22;  xx.  3. 

March  3.  Exclusiveness  (Epis.)  The  Bishop  of  London  prevented  the  Dean 
of  Westminster  and  other  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England  from  taking  part  in 
the  usual  noon  service  in  the  City  Temple  of  the  Congregationalists,  by  threaten¬ 
ing  a  legal  prosecution. . . xii.  17,  58. 

March  3.  Low  (Epis.)  Rev.  G.  A.  Redles  gives  to  Bishop  Stevens  his  reasons 
for  leaving  the  P.  E.  C.,  dated  Feb.  12,  1875,  “. . .  .1  regarded  the  Articles  as  the 
citadel  of  truth. . .  .1  believed  that  the  whole  Prayer  Book  could  be  interpreted  upon 
Protestant  principles. . .  .When  I  entered  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey,  I  learned  that 
the  Evangelical  Diocesan  Missionary  Society  was  about  to  be  disbanded. . .  .1  was 
told  that. . .  .it  had  built,  or  aided  in  building,  about  16  churches,  and  that  all  of 
them  except  one  had  gone  out  of  its  hands. . . .  A  large  majority  of  our  clergy  to¬ 
day  believe  themselves  to  be  priests. . .  .They  restrict  the  ministry  to  a  tactual  suc¬ 
cession.  ..  .They  appeal  to  the  Prayer  Book  to  sustain  their  position.  I  first  be- 


94 


CHAPTER  III. 


March  3,  1875. 

came  fully  convinced  to  go  out  of  my  Church  at  the  close  of  the  last  General  Con¬ 
vention.  . .  .Five  hundred  clergymen  signed  a  petition  to  that  body,  which  asked 
for  the  least  possible  concession. . .  .The  request  was  voted  down  in  the  proportion 
of  seven  dioceses  against  one.  . .  .1  soon  saw  how  Elizabeth  and  Charles  II.  had  al¬ 
tered  the  Prayer  Book  in  the  interests  of  Rome,  and  how  the  design  to  drive 
out  Protestants  under  Charles  II.  succeeded  in  the  case  of  2,000  clergymen  who  went 
out. . .  .1  had  discovered  that  I  must  use  language  which  not  only  sounded  unscrip- 
tural,  but  was  actually  so,  and  that  it  was  intended  to  mean  precisely  what  it  said.” 

xi.  20. 

March  3.  Diocese  of  Illinois  (Ch.  St.)  “  The  Rev.  Dr.  Locks,  of  Grace  Church, 
Chicago,  in  a  sermon  recently,  draws  the  following  picture  of  episcopacy  in  the  dio¬ 
cese  of  Illinois — We  looked  over  this  splendid  diocese,  filled  with  the  flower  of  the 
American  people — the  grandest  field  God  ever  spread  before  a  Church.  We  marked 
our  own  Church.  Witness  its  feeble,  discouraged  8,000  communicants  and  nearly 
3,000,000  of  people ;  $2,000  as  the  contributions  of  one  whole  year  toward  diocesan 
missions  ;  with  the  exception  of  a  few  parishes,  everything  meagre  and  dragging  ; 
the  -whole  field  a  dreary  waste,  and  our  hearts  burned  within  us.”,  .xiii.  25  ;  xii.  45. 

March  3.  Brooklyn.  Church  and  State  says  :  “  It  is  a  very  significant  fact 
that  some,  at  least,  of  the  Reformed  Episcopalians  are  endeavoring  to  defeat  Dr. 
Jaggar’s  election. . .  .This  is  in  the  form  of  a  letter. . .  .not  correct  in  any  sense 
which  should  justly  render  him  objectionable  to  conservative  churchmen.” 

March  1,  Brooklyn  ;  xx.  3. 

March  10.  Jaggar’s  letter  of  Feb.  22,  1875  (Epis.)  Dr.  Jaggar  in  his  letter 
to  Bp.  Stevens,  says  :  “  I  sympathized  with  the  ‘  perplexities  and  sorrows  ’  of  Mr. 
Cheney,  under  the  first  sentence  which  was  pronounced  upon  him,  and  signed,  as 
expressive  of  that  sympathy,  the  letter  which  has  been  published.  But  I  disavow 
emphatically  the  interpretations  which  have  been  put  upon  certain  phrases  in  that 
letter,  and  which  might  imply  that  I  countenanced  him  in  his  resistance  to  the  de¬ 
cision  of  the  Court.  The  letter  sharply  analyzed,  may  admit  of  such  inferences, 
but  the  ground  of  my  action  was  sympathy  with  one  peculiarly  tried,  and  not  ap¬ 
proval  of  his  course,  and  certainly  I  have  not  approved  of  his  subsequent  conduct.” 

xi.  21,  22. 

March.  10.  Brooklyn  Letter  of  March  1.  The  Episcopalian  says:  “Now 
there  are  no  new  facts  and  statements  in  ,this  communication,  except  the  assertion 
concerning  the  meeting  designed  to  draw  up  a  protest  against  the  false  doct  rine  of 
Apostolic  Succession.  The  fact,  we  believe,  is  not  denied,  but  it  is  asserted  and 
proved  that  said  protest  embodied  nothing  more  than  the  well-known  view£  of  con¬ 
servative  Churchmen.” . iii.  March  1,  1875,  Brooklyn;  xvii.  3. 

March  10.  Church  of  England  (Ch.  St.)  “  The  right  of  clergymen  to  preach 
in  Dissenting  pulpits,”  by  the  Rock  :  “  If  a  so-called  English  Churchman  may  be 
allowed  to  preach  up  the  Mass,  surely  a  so-called  Dissenter  may  be  allowed  to  cry 
it  down ;  and  if  this  be  denied  as  inconsistent  or  incompatible  with  the  conditions 
of  belonging  to  the  Establishment,  we  may  rest  certain  that  ere  many  years  are 
over  such  an  unjust  establishment  will  be  a  thing  of  the  past. .  .  .The  union  of 
Church  and  State  thus  becomes  the  symbol  and  instrument  of  the  division  of  Prot¬ 
estantism.  . .  .The  public  will  not  fail  to  note  one  serious  side  of  the  difficulty  in  its 
relation  to  the  controversies  of  the  day.  The  pulpit  of  the  English  Church  is  open  to 


CHAPTER  III. 


95 


March  10,  1875. 

various  foreign  ecclesiastics,  but  not  to  tbe  religious  teachers  of  one-half  of  the 
English  people.  There  may  be  an  exchange  of  religious  rites  with  the  Old  Cath¬ 
olics,  with  members  of  the  Greek  Church,  with  popularly  elected  Bishops  from  some 
parts  of  the  United  States  ;  but  there  can  be  none  between  the  official  organization 
which  represents  English  religion  and  the  Wesleyan,  the  Independent,  and  the 
Baptist,  and  other  ministers  who  are  its  unofficial  representatives.  It  is  not  possi¬ 
ble,  and  it  would  be  infinitely  undesirable  even  if  it  were  possible,  that  this  state 
of  things  can  long  endure.” . xii.  18. 

March  11.  Votes  for  Dr.  Jaggar  (Trib.)  “  An  unreformed  Episcopalian”  in  a 
letter  dated  “  Hew  York,  March  9,  1875,”  gives  in  detail  19  for  and  6  against  Jag¬ 
gar;  and  9  for  and  16  against  Dr.  De  Koven . iii.  March  1,  Brooklyn  ;  xvii.  3. 

March  12.  Dr.  Jaggar’s  sympathy  for  Dr.  Cheney . Post  of  12;  Trib.  of  13, 

“  Sympathy  for  Eev.  Dr.  Cheney.  All  the  original  documents  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  are  nowin  my  possession.  The  name  of  Dr.  Jaggar  is  not  on  one  of  the 
twelve  names  printed  on  the  circular,  but  in  manuscript  upon  two  of  them.  And 
each  circular  has  the  printed  note,  ‘  On  the  13th  of  May  all  the  signatures  will  be 
sent  to  Mr.  Cheney.’  This  shows  presumptively  that  the  signatures  were  before 
June  2,  the  date  of  deposition,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Hopkins  in  the  Churchman ,  dated 
‘  March  13,  1875.’ — B.  Aycrigg,  Passaic,  N.  J. — March  12,  1875.”  Also  telegram 
“  To  Dr.  John  H.  Hopkins,  Plattsburg,  New  York. — Jaggar’s  manuscript  signature 
is  on  printed  circulars,  required  May  13th  for  Cheney. — See  Post,  Tribune .” 

iii.  March  1,  Brooklyn;  xx.  3. 

March  13.  Dr.  Hopkins  (Chn.)  He  argues  that  the  signatures  must  have 
been  before  the  deposition,  as  in  (Feb.  27 ;  Low),  and  uses  some  harsh  criticisms 
respecting  (March  1,  Brooklyn)  and  (March  10,  Brooklyn),  as  if  intentionally  mis¬ 
representing  the  facts  stated  (March  12,  Jaggar’s  sympathy).  This  paper  ante¬ 
dated  March  13  was  received  on  March  11,  and  immediately  answered  by  (March 
12) .  iii.  March  1,  Brooklyn  ;  March  12,  Jaggar  ;  xx.  3. 

March  13.  [Reformed  Episcopalians  (Trib.)  “A  New  Jersey  Low  Churchman  ” 
scolds  the  R.  E.  C.  for  (March  1,  Brooklyn) . xi.  21,  22  ;  xx.  3. 

March  15.  Dr.  Hopkins  writes  to  B.  Aycrigg:  “Thanks  for  your  crowning 
evidence  which  I  have  seen  in  the  Tribune,"  etc.  (March  12)  Then  March  17,  B.  A. 
writes  to  Dr.  H.  :  “  With  me  it  was  not  a  Church  question.  It  was  simply  an  act 

of  duty  to  correct  misstatements.”  Then  follows  more  facts  respecting  the  names 
and  the  opinions  given  (xi.  17),  with  authority  to  use  the  letter  at  discretion,  since 
“  it  will  soon  appear  as  part  of  the  history  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  in  which  I  suppose  that 
we  may  agree  as  to  facts,  as  in  this  case,  but  draw  opposite  conclusions  as  Church 
antipodes.”  Dr.  H.  answers  that  the  confirmation  of  Dr.  Jaggar  being  now  certain, 
he  shall  have  no  use  for  the  extra  facts . xi.  16-22  ;  xx.  3. 

March  17.  Dr.  Hopkins  and  B.  Aycrigg  (see  above,  March  15). 

March  17.  Low(Epis.)  Rev.  Benjamin  Johnson  to  Bishop  Beckith,  withdraw¬ 
ing  from  the  P.  E.  C.  to  join  the  R.  E.  C.,  dated  March  1,  1875  :  “  The  movement  of 
Bishop  Cummins  took  me  entirely  by  surprise. ..  .1  felt  and  expressed  a  sincere 
regret  that  he  had  not  remained  to  represent  his  Protestant  principles  within  the 
Episcopal  Church.  Time  and  ecclesiastical  events  have  fully  vindicated  the  wisdom 
and  providence  of  his  movement.  . .  .1  have  solemnly  decided  to  ‘  go  with  him  ’. . . . 
To  save  itself  Episcopacy  must  have  a  strong  Protestant  presentation. .  .  .It  is  the 


96 


CHAPTER  III. 


March  17,  1875. 

judicial  opinion  of  Lord  Chief  Justice  Coleridge. ..  .that  so  long  as  Sacerdotalism 
is  so  clearly  recognized  in  the  Prayer  Book,  Ritualism  cannot  be  legally  condemned 
.  . .  .Pusey  and  De  Koven  are  abundantly  satisfied  with  the  Book  as  it  is. . .  .Re¬ 
vision  is  a  vital  necessity. . .  .Despairing  of  this  result  from  the  Church,  as  now 
dominated  by  Sacramentarianism,  my  conscience  impels  me  to  seek  relief  in  the  R. 
E.  C  . .  .It  cannot  be  that  the  essence  of  a  spiritual  religion  resides  in  external  ad¬ 
ministration.  . .  .1  miss  nothing  that  I  ever  loved  in  the  Old  Prayer  Book,  only  those 
doctrines,  the  distinctive  property  of  the  Papacy,  which  so  long  have  been  betray¬ 
ing  the  Church  into  Romanism  and  its  imitation.”  The  Episcopalian  also  copies 
from  the  Methodist  Southern  Christian  Advocate,  of  Macon,  Ga.,  some  very  compli¬ 
mentary  remarks  respecting  his  “  most  successful  pastorate  of  about  six  years  in 
this  city  ....  Impelled  by  conscientious  convictions  to  renounce  his  connection 
with  the  Church  in  which  he  was  reared,  and  at  whose  altars  he  has  served  most 
efficiently  for  twenty-five  years” . . . xi.  26. 

March  17.  R  3v.  W.  H.  Johnson,  of  S.  C.  The  Episcopalian  corrects  its  mis¬ 
take  in  supposing  that  he  was  the  Rev.  Benjamin  Johnson,  of  Ga. 

iii.  Feb.  25,  1875;  xiv.  10. 

March  17.  Ireland  (Ch.  St.)  Recently  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Metho¬ 
dists,  and  Independents  have  held  united  evangelical  meetings  in  Newry.  The 
assembly-room  could  not  hold  the  worshipers,  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  near 
by  was  opened.  This  was  also  filled,  and  an  Episcopalian  minister  presided  at  the 
service,  calling,  as  chairman,  upon  a  Primitive  Methodist  to  preach,  and  upon  a 
layman  to  pray  ” . . xii.  58. 

March  17.  Church  of  England  (Ch.  St.)  The  Pall  Mall  Budget  says  :  “The 
existing  system  of  the  Church  of  England  is — we  use  the  word  in  no  invidious  or 
disrespectful  sense — a  compromise. . .  .The  object  of  Elizabeth  and  her  advisers  was 
to  keep  as  large  a  part  of  the  nation  as  possible  within  the  pale  of  the  National 
Church. . .  .One  thing  was  done  to  please  those  whose  faces  were  turned  towards 
Rome. . .  .Another  thing  was  done  to  please  those  whose  faces  were  turned  towards 
Geneva. . .  .It  was  only  by  yielding  something  to  both  parties  that  the  more 
moderate  members  of  both  were  kept  where  they  were,  and  were  hindered  from 
actually  going  in  the  direction  in  which  they  were  severally  looking. . .  .The  ob¬ 
ject  of  the  reviewers  of  the  Prayer  Book  in  Charles  the  Second’s  time,  wa3  to  make 
the  changes  in  the  direction  of  the  first  book  of  Edward  the  Sixth,  but  to  do  so,  in 
a  manner,  by  stealth,  by  bringing  in  words  and  phrases  which  would  satisfy  the 
holders  of  one  set  of  opinions,  while  they  would  not  offend  the  holders  of  another 
set.  In  a  form  of  worship  which  has  grown  up  in  this  way,  inconsistency  is  noth¬ 
ing  in  the  least  wonderful  ;  it  is,  in  truth,  the  very  thing  to  be  looked  for.  In  the 
way  in  which  the  English  Prayer  Book  was  made,  it  could  hardly  fail  to  contain 
some  things  which  the  High  Churchman  delights  in,  and  which  the  Low  Church¬ 
man  can  barely  swallow,  and  some  things  which  the  Low  Churchman  delights  in, 
and  the  High  Churchman  can  barely  swallow.  In  truth,  inconsistencies  of  this 
kind  will  be  found  in  our  ecclesiastical  formulse  at  every  step  ” . xii.  18,  58. 

March.  18.  Episcopal  Elections  (Trib.)  “  The  adverse  vote  of  the  Standing 
Committees  of  the  P.  E.  C.  on  the  confirmation  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  De  Koven  as  the 
Bishop  of  Illinois,  will  no  doubt  be  considered  a  most  serious  advantage  that  the 
Low  Church  party  have  gained  in  their  contest  with  the  alleged  Ritualists. . .  He 


CHAPTER  TIL 


97 


March  18,  1875. 

liad  been  twice  before  nominated  for  the  Bishopric — in  Massachusetts  and  Wiscon¬ 
sin.  . .  .He  accepted  the  honor  at  the  hands  of  the  Illinois  Convention _ as  a  vindi¬ 

cation  of  the  former  action  of  that  Convention  in  the  choice  of  Professor  Seymour. . . . 
The  data. . .  .indicate  that  the  opposition  to  Dr.  De  Koven  was  principally,  though 
far  from  entirely,  among  the  laity. .  .  .The  adverse  vote  on  the  confirmation  of  Dr. 
Jaggar,  who  was  opposed  for  presumed  sympathy  with  the  Low  Church  party,  was 
largely  made  up  of  the  clerical  members  of  the  Standing  Committees. . .  .It  may 
now  be  said  by  moderate  Churchmen,  that  no  plausible  excuse  can  be  given  for 
secession” . iii.  March  22,1875;  xii.  58. 

March  22.  Episcopal  Elections  (Trib  )  “The  rejection  of  Dr.  De  Koven  af¬ 
forded  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ewer  of  this  city  occasion  for  a  sermon  yesterday  on  the  revo¬ 
lution  in  the  Episcopal  Church.  It  will  be  seen  by  our  report  of  this  discourse  [of 
this  date]  that  Dr.  Ewer  took  the  ground  that  the  vote  of  the  Standing  Committees 
on  this  question  shows  a  substantial  victory  for  what  he  terms  the  *  Catholic  ’  party. 
The  wonder  is,  he  thinks,  not  that  Dr.  De  Koven  was  rejected,  but  that  so  early  in 
the  career  of  *  Catholicity,’  twelve  dioceses  have  dared  to  vote  for  a  Catholic,  and 
twelve  dioceses  presumed  to  vote  against  a  Low  Churchman  ” . xii.  58,  59. 

March  29.  Low?  (Times).  “The  will  of  the  late  ex-Chief  Justice  Richard 
Ward  Green  bequeaths  $75,000  to  aid  [the  Methodist  Episcopal  Sunday-schools  of 
Rhode  Island. . .  .Mr.  Green  was  a  member  of  the  P.  E.  C.” . xii.  58. 

March  30.  Ritualism  in  England  (Toronto  Globe).  Copy  in  full  of  the  Dec¬ 
laration  by  two  Archbishops  and  twenty-four  Bishops  (all  except  the  Bishops  of 
Durham  and  of  Salisbury) ;  of  which  the  editor  says  :  “  Its  burden  is  the  Episcopal 
way  of  saying  ‘  Let  us  have  peace,’  but  apparently  it  is  peace  at  any  price  that  is 
desired.  The  Rt.  Rev.  Fathers  could  not  say  exactly  that  they  deprecated  discus¬ 
sion,  but  they  have  said  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing. . .  .The  civil  interpreters 
of  the  law  of  the  Church  are  to  be  implicitly  followed. . .  .Those  constituting  that 
Committee  may  not  be  members  of  the  Church  of  England  at  all.  Nay,  may  be 
utter  scoffers  and  avowed,  or,  at  least,  practical  unbelievers,  who  hold  all  religions 
equally  true,  that  is,  equally  false.  Yet  their  verdict  on  what  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England,  is,  as  far  as  earth  is  concerned,  final,  and  the  Bishops  say  that 
it  is  well  that  it  should  be  so,  and  exhort  entire  submission  to  all  its  decisions.  . . . 
A  Church  which  abnegates  all  self-government,  and  hands  over  the  interpretation 
of  its  laws  and  doctrines  to  two  or  three  laymen,  who  need  not  be  either  Church¬ 
men  or  Christians,  is  surely  in  a  bad  way.”  The  Church  and  State  of  Oct.  81  has 
the  remarks  of  the  Spectator  and  of  the  llecord . xii.  22,  58. 

April  1.  Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson  (So.  Ch.)  “  On  March  10,  at  St.  Luke’s  Church, 
Charleston,  S.  C.,  Bishop  Howe  declared  the  sentence  of  deposition  pronounced 
against  Rev.  W.  II.  Johnson  on  the  8th  day  of  January  last,  to  be,  at  the  unanimous 
recommendation  of  the  Standing  Committee,  and  with  the  consent  of  five  Bishops 
(those  of  Kentucky,  North  Carolina,  Louisiana,  and  assistant  Bishop  of  Kentucky), 
‘  remitted  and  terminated’  and  the  said  clergyman  to  be  restored  to  the  full  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  all  the  privileges,  dignities,  and  power  of  the  priesthood.”  [iii.  Feb.  25, 
1875,  he  does  not  condemn  the  R.  E.  C.  Then  ii.  July  8,  diff.  the  Canon  requires 
*  him  to  condemn,  and  three  Bishops  to  act.  Then  xiv.  10  he  receives  a  letter  dimis- 
sory  from  Bishop  Cummins.  Then  iii.  April  1,  five  Bishops  act  and  take  the  re¬ 
sponsibility  of  receiving  a  man  who  wras  too  honest  to  say  what  he  did  not  believe. 
The  transactions  from  the  beginning  have  been  honorable  to  all  concerned.] 


CHAPTER  IV. 


EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE. 

% 


Contents: — (1,  2).  Address  of  Bishop  Cummins. — (3  to  8).  Principles  of 
the  Old  Evangelicals ,  cause  the  inauguration  of  the  11.  E.  C. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  Oct.  8,  1873.  Bishop  Cummins  addressed  the  Alliance  on  the  subject  of 
“Roman  and  Reformed  Doctrines  on  the  subject  of  Justification  contrasted.”  In 
the  bound  volume  of  the  proceedings  he  is  thus  quoted: — 

(2)  “  Rome  denies  this  great  truth  [justification  by  faith],  and  in  its  stead  has 
built  that  gigantic  system  of  error,  whose  essence  consists  in  placing  the  Church 
between  the  soul  and  God,  as  the  sole  dispenser  of  this  grace,  and  without  whose 
ministrations  there  is  no  salvation.  From  this  springs  all  the  kindred  errors — the 
elevation  of  the  ministry  into  a  hierarchy,  a  sacrificing,  mediating  priesthood, 
through  whose  offices  alone  all  heavenly  blessings  can  come;  a  priesthood  in  whose 
hands,  sacraments  convey  grace  ex  opere  operato ,  independent  of  the  faith  of  the 
recipient — a  priesthood  empowered  to  forgive  sins,  after  securing  the  confession  of 
the  penitent — a  priesthood  by  whose  word  the  bread  of  the  Sacrament  becomes 
God  incarnate — a  priesthood  empowered  to  offer  sacrifices  for  the  quick  and  dead  ’’ 

(P-  471). 

“The  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  is  assailed,  not  so  much  because  it  is 
thought  dangerous  to  morality,  as  because  it  robs  the  Church — that  is,  the  clerical 
order — of  its  assumed  priestly  character  ”  (p.  472). 

“  Fellow  Protestants  of  every  name  and  nationality !  Children  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  !  This  is  the  very  citadel  of  our  faith,  the  very  heart  of  the  Gospel.  This 
truth  made  the  Reformation.  And,  under  God,  this  truth  alone  can  preserve  it; 
revive  it  where  it  has  become  feeble  and  sickly  ;  purify  it  where  it  has  fallen  from 
its  first  estate.  In  the  reception,  maintenance,  and  personal  experience  of  this 
‘  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,’  we  are  to  find  the  real  union  of  all  Protestant  Christen¬ 
dom.  United  to  Christ  by  a  saving  faith,  I  am  one  with  every  other  believer” 
(p.  474). 

(3)  Now,  to  these  doctrines  as  general  principles,  we  must  unquestionably  at¬ 

tribute  the  foundation  of  the  R.  E.  C.  Not  because  here  announced,  for  here  is 
nothing  new.  This  is  but  one  of  the  efforts  made  by  Bishop  Cummins  and  other 
Low  Churchmen  to  arrest  the  tide  of  Romish  error  that  is  now  sweeping  over  the 
once  “Protestant”  Episcopal  Church . xi.;  xvi.  28. 

(4)  But,  I  think,  that  in  another  mode,  the  Alliance  was  used  by  Providence  to 
plant  in  the  same  spot  that  was  occupied  by  itself,  just  two  months  before,  a  small 
seed  in  the  form  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  to  represent  a  new  phase  of  the  grand  Christian 
principles  which  brought  that  Alliance  together. 

(5)  Thus:  the  Alliance  brought  Bishop  Cummins  to  New  York,  with  the  conse- 

(98) 


CHAPTER  IV. 


99 


5th  Section. 

quence  of  tlie  Joint  Communion  on  Oct.  12,  and  the  consequent  exhibition  of  the 
present  character  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  until  the  whole  culminated  in  the  resignation 
of  Bishop  Cummins  on  Nov.  10,  and  his  visit  to  Passaic,  N.  J.,  on  Nov.  12,  for  the 
purpose  of  rest.  And  there,  without  premeditation,  occurred  the  conference  of  Nov. 
12-13,  from  which  sprung  the  R.  E.  C . ix.  5. 

(6)  As  to  the  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith  and  the  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher,  the  two 

Presbyters  at  that  meeting,  I  do  not  know  that  the  Alliance  had  any  influence  (ix. 
5).  They  had  both  withdrawn  from  the  P.  E.  C.  several  years  previously,  for  the 
same  causes  as  did  Bishop  Cummins  on  Nov.  10 . vii.  2,  5. 

(7)  But,  from  all  the  circumstances  attending  that  Conference,  I  have  no  doubt 
that  if  either  one  of  the  four  who  were  present,  had  not  been  prepared  to  ccnsider 
the  question  of  founding  a  new  organization,  such  proposition  would  not  have 
grown  out  of  the  general  conversation  respecting  the  Rome  ward  tendencies  of  the 
P.  E.  C.  I  was  the  only  layman  present,  and  in  my  opinion  the  Alliance  was  used 
by  Providence  to  prepare  me  for  that  meeting,  within  less  than  two  weeks  before 
that  date.  Thus 

(8) .  During  the  meetings  of  the  Alliance,  and  as  T  supposed  to  counteract  their 
influence,  the  Higli-Churcli,  but  honorable  and  conscientious  rector  of  St.  John’s 
Church  in  Passaic,  expressed  more  strongly  than  usual,  the  views  held  by  the 
ruling  majority  in  the  P.  E.  C.  Or  it  is  possible  that  they  appeared  in  a  stronger 
light  by  contrast  with  the  broad  Christian  principles  of  the  Alliance. 

But  in  either  way,  I  believe  that  the  Alliance  was  the  immediate  cause  of  my 
writing  to  the  Senior  Warden  on  Oct.  30,  1873,  giving  my  reasons  for  leaving  that 
parish  of  which  I  had  been  one  of  the  founders  in  1859,  and  for  which  I  had  spent 
much  time  and  money.  I  then  thought  seriously  of  joining  the  Reformed  (Dutch) 
Church  ;  but  sad  to  think  that  at  the  age  of  three  score  and  ten,  I  must  give  up 
the  familiar  service  of  my  whole  life,  and  the  Church  of  my  paternal  and  maternal 
ancestors.  I  was  thus  prepared  for  the  result  of  that  meeting . xii.  29,  51. 


CHAPTER  V. 


JOINT  COMMUNIONS. 


Contents  : — (1,  2,  5).  What  they  were. — (3).  Dr.  Adams  on  Bishop  Tozer. 
—(4).  Bishop  Cummins. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  These  joint  communions,  which  have  become  historical,  occurred  on  Sunday, 
Oct.  12,  1873,  in  two  Presbyterian  churches  in  New  York.  The  Rev.  William 
Adams,  D.D.,  wTas  the  pastor  of  the  church  in  which  the  Dean  of  Canterbury  joined 
with  non-episcopalians,  and  the  Rev.  John  Hall,  D.D.,  is  still  pastor  of  the  church 
in  which  Bishop  Cummins  did  the  same.  These  are  reported  in  the  secular  papers 
of  Oct.  13,  1873. 

(2)  In  these  communions  the  Rt.  Rev.  George  David  Cummins,  D.D.,  assistant 
Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Diocese  of  Kentucky,  and  the  Very  Rev.  R. 
Payne  Smith,  D.D.,  the  Dean  of  Canterbury,  representative  of  the  Primate  of  all 
England,  took  part  with  non-episcopal  clergymen  in  the  administration  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper, 

(3)  With  respect  to  the  Dean  of  Canterbury,  Dr.  Adams  writes  to  the  New 
York  Evening  Post,  Nov.  17,  1873  :  “  During  his  visit  in  this  city. . .  .the  Dean  sig¬ 
nified  his  pleasure  to  join  in  the  Holy  Communion  with  the  representatives  of 
different  nations  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  on  Madison  Square.  This  was  by  no 
appointment  or  arrangement  of  the  Alliance,  but  of  his  own  free  will — in  expression, 
as  we  may  assume,  of  his  desire  for  more  of  visible  Christian  union.  In  this  spirit 
lie  actually  joined  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  with  many  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  Anglican,  Reformed,  Lutheran,  Moravian,  Waldensian,  Methodist, 
Baptist,  and  other  churches,  himself  receiving  with  others  the  elements  from  the 
hand  of  the  Presbyterian  pastor. 

“  This  scene  attracted  no  little  attention  from  all  quarters.  To  many  it  was 
a  spectacle  of  unfeigned  delight  and  satisfaction.  By  others,  and  those  in  the  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  this  act  of  the  Dean  of  Canterbury  was  sharply  criticised  and  de¬ 
nounced  ;  by  none  more  emphatically  than  in  a  letter  addressed  to  ‘  My  Lord 
Bishop’  (sic)  of  New  York,  by  Bishop  Tozer,  Missionary  from  Africa,  then  visiting 
our  city,  but  having  no  connection  with  the  Alliance.  Much  in  the  language  and 
spirit  of  this  letter  may  easily  be  pardoned  in  a  stranger  evidently  ignorant  of 
American  institutions  and  habits  ;  but  now  Bishop  Potter  himself,  in  a  letter  ad¬ 
dressed  to  the  press  of  this  city  has  actually  endorsed  and  approved  the  remark¬ 
able  production.  He  pronounces  it  according  to  his  personal  knowledge  ‘  far  from 
being  a  hasty  letter.’  With  no  disclaimer,  not  even  of  its  address  and  superscrip¬ 
tion,  he  characterizes  it  as  ‘  well  considered,’  and  ‘  manly.’  This  letter,  we  are  in¬ 
formed  by  Bishop  Potter,  ‘  found  its  way  into  print  by  accident  !  ’  But  it  is  by  no 
(100) 


CHAPTER  Y. 


101 


3d  Section. 

accident  that  Bishop  Potter  now  gives  it  his  printed  and  public  approval.  The 
letter  of  Bishop  Tozer,  thus  endorsed,  contains  no  equivocal  menace  that  the  act  of 
the  Dean  of  Canterbury  should  be  reported  to  his  Archbishop  for  judicial  notice.” 
" . . .  .Does  Bishop  Potter  seriously  claim  such  territorial  jurisdiction  over  the  city 
and  county  of  New  York,  and  such  identity  of  all  branches  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
throughout  the  world,  that  every  clerical  visitor  from  England  episcopally  ordained, 
is  required  to  consult  him  as  to  the  meetings  he  may  attend,  the  pulpits  in  which 
he  may  preach,  and  the  communion  tables  at  which  he  may  receive  the  sacrament, 
under  penalty  of  being  publicly  arraigned  for  ‘  eccentricity,’  ‘  irregularity,’  and  un¬ 
faithfulness  to  his  ‘  ordination  vows.’ 

(4)  Bishop  Cummins,  in  like  manner,  by  persons  less  conspicuous  than  Bishop 
Tozer,  was  attacked  for  doing  in  Dr.  Hall’s  Church  what  the  Dean  of  Canterbury 
had  done  in  Dr.  Adams’  Church. 

(5)  I  was  present  at  this  Joint  Communion  in  Dr.  Adams’  Church,  and  it  was 
the  grandest  Communion  of  the  “  Holy  Catholic  Church  ”  of  the  Apostles’  Creed 
that  I  ever  saw  or  expect  to  see — that  vast  congregation  of  all  names  and  nations 
filling  the  church  from  front  to  rear,  and  filling  the  aisles;  all,  with  rare  exceptions, 
joining  in  the  Communion. 

iii.  Nov.  5,  1873,  Ch.  St.;  Nov.  5,  Bp.  Potter ;  Feb.  4,  1874,  Dean  ;  Oct.  1,  Bp. ;  Oct. 

12,  Dr.  Mead. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


PRAYER  BOOK  OF  1785  A ND  JOURNAL  OF  1785-6. 


Contents: — (1,  2,  5). — Whence  obtained—  (8).  Reprint  as  Low  Church 
document. — (4).  Then  for  R.  E.  C—  (6,  7,  8).  Contents  of  Journals. — (9). 
Referred  to. — (10).  Bishop  White's  Memoirs.  — (11).  Perry's  Hand-Book. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  Before  the  reprint  of  the  Prayer  Booh  of  1785,  it  was  so  little  known,  that 
when  Bishop  Cummins,  in  the  Call  of  Nov.  13,  referred  to  it  (ix.  2),  it  was  in  print 
pronounced  to  he  a  myth. 

(2)  The  copy  from  which  this  was  reprinted  was  obtained  from  London  several 
years  since  at  considerable  expense  on  account  of  its  scarceness,  by  the  Rev.  Mar¬ 
shall  B.  Smith,  who  knew  of  its  existence,  but  had  never  before  been  able  to  find  a 
copy. 

(3)  When  Bishop  Cummins  was  in  New  York  attending  the  meetings  of  the 
Alliance  (Oct.  2  to  12),  this  book  was  lent  to  him  (as  I  was  informed),  and  he  find¬ 
ing  it  so  much  more  Protestant  than  the  Prayer  Book  of  1789,  obtained  from  sev¬ 
eral  laymen  the  promise  to  pay  for  reprinting  it  as  a  valuable  document  to  sustain 
the  Low  Churchmen.  At  that  time  I  was  not  acquainted  with  Bishop  Cummins. 
This  book  was  then  presented  to  Bishop  Cummins,  and  reprinted  as  directed  “  ver¬ 
batim  et  literatim  el  punctuatim.”  On  one  occasion  when  I  had  charge  of  the 
reprint,  the  proof  sheets  were  returned  with  a  special  note  pointing  out  supposed 
systematic  errors.  The  printer  referred  to  his  standing  orders  and  proved  by  copy 
that  he  had  followed  directions. 

(4)  While  this  Prayer  Book  of  1 785  was  in  the  hands  of  the  printer,  the  deter¬ 

mination  to  found  the  R.  E.  C.  was  reached  on  Nov.  13  (ix.  9).  Then  the  reprint 
was  put  under  my  charge  and  driven  with  all  practicable  speed,  so  as  to  be  on  hand 
at  the  organization  on  Dec.  2.  This  was  accomplished  so  far  as  to  have  fifty  cop¬ 
ies . ii.  Dec.  4. 

(5)  The  journals  of  the  General  Conventions  of  1785-6  were  obtained  by  Bishop 
Cummins  about  three  or  four  days  after  the  date  of  the  Call  of  Nov.  13.  They 
were  brought  from  Belfast,  Ireland,  by  the  Rev.  John  Hall,  D.D.,  bound  up  with 
other  pamphlets  (v.  4.)  Immediately  on  permission  being  obtained,  these  were  put 
into  the  hands  of  the  printer,  and  copies  were  prepared  in  time  for  the  organization 
of  Dec.  2,  1873. 

(6)  The  “  Journal,”  Sept.  17  to  Oct.  7, 1875,  shows  that  NewYork,  New  Jersey,  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia  and  South  Carolina  only  were  represented. 
. . .  .Read  proceedings  of  Convention  of  1784  (p.  5  of  reprints).  Committee  of  one 
clergyman,  one  layman  from  each  State  to  draft  a  Constitution  (p.  6)  which  is  re- 

(102) 


CHAPTER  VI. 


103 


6th.  Section. 

ported  (p.  8);  and  refers  to  the  “  Meeting  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  on  Oct.  G,  7, 
1784,  from  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  Delaware,  and  Maryland  (p.  8);  refers  to  the  Prayer  Book  of  1785  as 
“  proposed  and  recommended.”  (p.  10):  “That  the  first  Thursday  of  November  in 
every  year  forever  shall  be. . .  .Thanksgiving  ”  (11) :  “  Plan  of  obtaining  Consecra¬ 
tion.  . .  .address  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England,  requesting 
them  to  confer  the  episcopal  character. ..  .That  Conventions. ..  .correspond  with 
the  English  Bishops. . .  .Bishops  may  be  called  the  Rt.  Rev.  A.  B.,  Bishop  of  the  P. 
E.  C.  in  G.  D.,  and  as  Bishops  may  have  no  other  title.’’  (p.  12):  “To  the  most 
Reverend  and  Right  Reverend  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York,  and  the 
Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England. . .  .our  fathers. . .  as  well  from  a  veneration  for 
Episcopal  government  as  from  an  attachment  to  the  admirable  services  of  our 
Liturgy,. ..  .professing  the  same  religious  principles  with  the  Church  of  England, 
you  will  he  pleased  to  confer  the  Episcopal  character. . .  .(p.  18). . .  .The  Bishops  of 
London  were  our  Diocesans  (p.  14).  .  .  .Besohed,  That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith  bo 
requested  to  prepare  and  preach  a  sermon,. . .  .and  that  the  Service  be  then  read 
as  proposed  for  future  use  (pp.  15,  16).  . .  .Friday,  7tli  Oct.,  1785.  The  Convention 

met. . .  .Liturgy  as  altered  was  read  by  Rev.  Dr.  White,  and. . .  .sermon _ by  Rev. 

Dr.  Smith  (p.  16). 

(7)  “  Journal,”  Philadelphia,  June  20  to  26,  1786.  Same  States  represented  as  in 
1785. . .  .Letter  from  nineteen  Archbishops  and  Bishops  awaiting  further  informa¬ 
tion  (pp.  20,  21)  “  A  motion  made  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Provost  and  seconded  by  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  viz.  :  That  this  Convention  will  resolve  to  do  no 
act  that  shall  imply  the  validity  of  ordinations  made  by  Mr.  Seabury.  The 
previous  question  was  moved  by  Dr.  Smith,  seconded  by  Dr.  White,  viz. :  Shall 
this  question  be  now  put  ? — and  carried  in  the  affirmative.  The  main  question  was 
then  proposed  and  determined  in  the  negative,  as  follows :  New  York,  aye  ;  New 
Jersey,  aye;  Pennsylvania,  no;  Delaware,  no;  Maryland,  no;  Virginia,  no; 
South  Carolina,  aye.  On  motion  made  by  Dr.  White  and  seconded  by  Mr.  Smith, 
of  South  Carolina,  Besolved  unanimously ,  That  it  be  recommended  to  this  Church 
in  the  States  here  represented,  not  to  receive  to  the  pastoral  charge  within  their 
respective  limits,  clergymen  professing  canonical  subjection  to  any  Bishop  in  any 
State  or  country  other  than  those  Bishops  who  may  be  duly  settled  in  the  States 
represented  in  this  Convention.”. . . .“  It  was  unanimously  Besolved,  That  it  be  rec¬ 
ommended  to  the  Conventions  of  the  Church  represented  in  this  General  Conven¬ 
tion  not  to  admit  any  person  as  a  minister  within  their  respective  limits  who  shall 
receive  ordination  from  any  Bishop  residing  in  America  during  the  application  now 
pending  to  the  English  Bishops  for  Episcopal  consecration.”  (p.  22).  The  answer 
to  the  letter  of  the  Bishops  on  pages  20-21,  says:  “While  doubts  remain,.... 
we  acknowledge  the  propriety  of  suspending  a  compliance  with  our  request.... 
Many  great  and  pious  men  of  the  Church  of  England  have  long  wished  for  a  revis¬ 
ion  of  the  Liturgy,  which  it  was  deemed  imprudent  to  hazard. . .  .This  with  us  is 
the  proper  season  for  revision. . .  .leads  us  to  flatter  ourselves  that  you  will  not  dis¬ 
claim  a  branch  of  your  Church  merely  for  having  been. . .  .pruned  rather  more 
closely  than  its  separation  made  absolutely  necessary.”  (pp.  28,  29). 

(8.)  “Journal”  of  Oct.  10,  11,  1786,  at  Wilmington.  With  representatives  from 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  South  Carolina. 


104 


CHAPTER  VI. 


8th.  Section. 

Adjourned  meeting  begins  with  the  letter  signed  by  tlie  Archbishops  of  Canterbury 

and  of  York,  who  say. . . .“  The  whole  of  your  communications  were  then _ taken 

into  consideration  at  a  meeting  of  the  Archbishops  and  fifteen  Bishops . Less  re¬ 

spect,  however,  was  paid  to  our  Liturgy  than  its  own  excellence  and  your  declared 
attachment  to  it  had  led  us  to  expect. ..  .Two  confessions. ..  .have  been  entirely 
laid  aside  [Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds]  and  that  even  in  that  which  is  called 
the  Apostles’  Creed  an  article  is  omitted  [He  descended  into  hell.]  Nevertheless, 
. . .  .trusting  that  the  communications  we  shall  make  to  you. . .  .will  have  the  de¬ 
sired  effect,  we  have. . .  .prepared  a  bill  conveying  to  us  the  powers  necessary  for 
the  purpose  ”  (pp.  84-38).  Convention  elected  Rev.  Dr.  Provost  President  by  bal¬ 
lot  (p.  40).  “Whereas _ Archbishops  and  Bishops - earnestly  exhorting  this  Con¬ 

vention.  . .  .for  removal  of  certain  objections. . .  .In  pursuance  whereof  this  present 
General  Convention  has  been  called  ”  (pp.  41-43).  Question  on  restoring  “  He  de¬ 
scended  into  hell:  ”  New  York,  2  yes,  1  no  ;  New  Jersey,  5  yes  ;  Pennsylvania,  3 
yes,  3  no ;  Delaware,  2  yes,  2  no ;  South  Carolina,  2  yes  ;  “  and  so  the  words  are  to 
be  restored,  there  being  two  ayes  and  no  negative.”  “  On  the  question,  Shall  the 
Nicene  Creed  be  restored  in  the  Liturgy?  the  same  was  unanimously  agreed  to.” 
“  Shall  the  Athanasian  Creed  be  restored  ?  ”  New  York,  3  no  ;  New  Jersey,  2  yes, 
3  no;  Pennsylvania,  G  no ;  Delaware,  1  yes,  3  no;  South  Carolina,  2  no;  “and  so  it 
was  decided  in  the  negative  ”  (p.  44).  Elected  for  consecration  as  Bishops :  Rev. 
Dr.  Samuel  Provost,  by  New  York  ;  Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  White,  by  Pennsylvania  ;  Rev. 
Dr.  David  Griffith,  by  Virginia. 

(9)  This  Proposed  Book  of  1785  is  referred  to  (vii.  1  ;  ix.  2  ;  xi.  3  ;  ii.  Nov.  19, 
1873,  Ch.  St. ;  Dec.  4,  Prayer-Book. 

(10)  Bishop  White’s  Memoirs,  Edition  of  1836,  page  22,  says  :  “  On  the  27th 

of  September,  1785,  there  assembled _ in  Philadelphia _ deputies  from  seven  of 

the  thirteen  States.’’  A  note  on  page  107  says:  “  The  Convention  seems  to  have 
fallen  into  two  capital  errors. . .  .ordering  the  printing  of  a  large  edition. . .  .order¬ 
ing  the  use  of  it. . .  .at  the  conclusion. . .  .of  the  Session.  This  helped  to  confirm 
the  opinion  of  its  being  introduced  with  a  high  hand.” 

(11)  Hand-Book  of  the  General  Conventions,  1785  to  1874,  by  William  Stevens 
Perry,  D.D.,  contains  much  that  is  interesting  respecting  the  above,  extracted 
from  Bishop  White’s  Memoirs  and  from  documents  belonging  to  the  General  Con¬ 
vention.  It  was  printed  in  1874.  The  reprint  above  was  in  Dec.,  1873. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


RESIGNATIONS. 


(1).  Of  Bishop  Cummins. — (2).  Of  Ben.  M.  B.  Smith. — (3).  Record  of 
Deposition. — (4).  New  Jersey  Bishop  and  Convention. — (5).  Resignation  of 
Rev.  Mason  Gallagher. — (6).  Other  Resignations. — (7).  Restoration. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  Bishop  Cummins  withdraws  from  the  P.  E.  C.  “  New  York,  November  10, 
1873. — To  the  Right  Reverend  Benjamin  Bosworth  Smith,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky. — Rt.  Rev.  and  Dear 
Bishop  :  Under  a  solemn  sense  of  duty,  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  I  have  to  tell  you 
that  I  am  about  to  retire  from  the  work  in  which  I  have  been  engaged  for  the  last 
seven  years  in  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky,  and  thus  to  sever  the  relations  which  have 
existed  so  happily  and  harmoniously  between  us  during  that  time.  It  is  due  to 
you,  and  to  my  many  dear  friends  in  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky  and  elsewhere,  that 
I  should  state  clearly  the  causes  wdiicli  have  led  me  to  this  determination. 

“  1.  First,  then,  you  well  know  how  heavy  has  been  the  trial  of  having  to  exer¬ 
cise  my  office  in  certain  churches  in  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky  where  the  services 
are  conducted  so  as  to  symbolize  and  to  teach  the  people  doctrines  subversive  of  the 
‘  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,’  and  as  it  wras  maintained  and  defended  by  the  Reformers 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  On  each  occasion  that  I  have  been  called  upon  to  officiate 
in  those  churches,  I  have  been  most  painfully  impressed  by  the  conviction  that  I 
was  sanctioning  and  endorsing,  by  my  presence  and  official  acts,  the  dangerous 
errors  symbolized  by  the  services  customary  in  Ritualistic  churches.  I  can  no 
longer,  by  my  participation  in  such  services,  be  ‘  a  partaker  of  other  men’s  sins,’ 
and  must  clear  my  own  soul  of  all  complicity  in  such  errors. 

“  2.  I  have  lost  all  hope  that  this  system  of  error  now  prevailing  so  extensively 
in  the  Church  of  England,  and  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country, 
can  be  or  will  be  eradicated  by  any  action  of  the  authorities  of  the  Church  legisla¬ 
ture  or  executive.  The  only  true  remedy,  in  my  judgment,  is  the  judicious,  yet 
thorough  revision  of  the  Prayer-Book,  eliminating  from  it  all  that  gives  counte¬ 
nance,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the  whole  system  of  Sacerdotalism  and  Ritualism  : 
a  revision  after  the  model  of  that  recommended  by  the  Commission  appointed  in 
England  under  royal  authority  in  1689,  and  whose  work  was  endorsed  by  the  great 
names  of  Burnet,  Patrick,  Tillotson,  and  Stillingfleet,  and  others  of  the  Church  of 
England — a  blessed  work,  which  failed,  alas  !  to  receive  the  approval  of  Convoca¬ 
tion,  but  was  taken  up  afterwards  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  and  embodied  in  the  Prayer-Book  of  1785,  which  they 
set  forth  and  recommended  for  use  in  this  country.  I  propose  to  return  to  that 
Prayer  Book,  sanctioned  by  William  White,  and  to  tread  in  the  steps  of  that  saintly 
man,  as  he  acted  from  1785  to  1789. 


(105) 


106 


CHAPTER  VII. 


1st  Section. 

“  3.  One  other  reason  for  my  present  action  remains  to  be  given.  On  the  last 
day  of  the  late  conference  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  I  participated  in  the  cele¬ 
bration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  by  invitation,  in  the  Rev.  Dr.  John  Hall’s  Church  in 
the  City  of  New  York,  and  united  with  Dr.  Hall,  Dr.  Win.  Arnot,  of  Edinburgh, 
and  Prof.  Dorner,  of  Berlin,  in  that  precious  Feast.  It  was  a  practi  al  manifesta¬ 
tion  of  the  real  unity  of  ‘  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people  ’  whom  God 
'hath  knit  together  in  one  communion  and  fellowship,  in  the  mystical  body  of  His 
Son  Jesus  Christ.’  The  results  of  that  participation  have  been  such  as  to  prove  to 
my  mind  that  such  a  step  cannot  be  taken  by  one  occupying  the  position  I  now 
hold,  without  sadly  disturbing  the  peace  and  harmony  of  ‘  this  Church,’  and  with¬ 
out  impairing  my  influence  for  good  over  a  large  portion  of  the  same  Church,  very 
many  of  whom  are  within  our  own  Diocese.  As  I  cannot  surrender  the  right  and 
privilege  thus  to  meet  my  fellow-Christians  of  other  churches  around  the  table  of 
our  dear  Lord,  I  must  take  my  place  where  I  can  do  so  without  alienating  those  of 
my  own  household  of  faith.  I,  therefore,  leave  the  communion  in  which  I  have 
labored  in  the  sacred  ministry  for  over  twenty-eight  years,  and  transfer  my  work 
and  office  to  another  sphere  of  labor.  I  have  an  earnest  hope  and  confidence  that 
a  basis  for  the  union  of  all  Evangelical  Christendom  can  be  found  in  a  communion 
which  shall  retain  or  restore  a  Primitive  Episcopacy  and  a  pure  Scriptural  Liturgy, 
with  a  fidelity  to  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  only — Articulns  stantis  vel 
cadentis  Ecclesice — a  position  towards  which  the  Old  Catholics  in  Europe  are  rapidly 
tending,  and  which  has  already  taken  a  definite  form  in  the  ‘  Church  of  Jesus  ’  in 
Mexico.  To  this  blessed  work  I  devote  the  remaining  years  of  life,  content,  if  I 
can  only  see  the  dawn  of  that  blessed  day  of  the  Lord.  I  am,  dear  Bishop, 

“  Faithfully  yours  in  Christ,  George  David  Cummins.” 

(2)  Kev.  Marshall  B.  Smith  to  Bishop  Odenheimer,  March  15,  1869,  with¬ 
drawing  from  the  P.  E.  C.  Extracts  from  the  pamphlet  (pp.  16)  reprinted  for  the 
R.  E.  C. 

“  For  some  time  I  believed  that  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  consistently 
and  thoroughly  Protestant. . .  .But  priest,  altar,  sacrifice  stand  forth  throughout 
....I  can  no  longer  use  certain  expressions  which  it  contains. ..  .The  canons 
passed  at  the  last  General  Convention. . .  .are  some  of  them. . .  .such  that  I  cannot 
conscientiously  obey  them. ..  .Adhering  as  I  do  to  the  truth  as  taught  in  the 
Gospel,  and  in  its  epitome  those  noble  Protestant  formularies,  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles. . .  .there  is  no  alternative  for  me  as  an  honest  man  but  to  withdraw. . .  .1 
love  the  mode  of  worship  of  our  Church,  and  could  never  leave  it  did  I  see 
any  possibility  of  the  revision  of  its  Offices,  the  suppression  of  Romish  and  other 
corrupt  practices,  and  a  just  guarantee  of  liberty  to  the  Evangelical  clergy.”  (ii. 
April  22,  1874). 

The  "Journal”  of  1869  (p.  138),  has  this  courteous  record  by  Bishop  Oden¬ 
heimer:  “  1869,  April  19 — Deposed  on  his  letter  of  resignation,  and  not  for  crime 
or  immorality,  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith.”  And  page  112,  the  Bishop  in  his  annual 
address  refers  to  this  resignation. 

(4)  And  (by  way  of  parenthesis,  to  show  the  high-toned  liberality  of  this  High 
Church  Bishop  and  Convention)  Mr.  Smith  as  an  avowed  Low  Churchman  preached 
the  Convention  sermon  by  appointment  of  the  Bishop  in  1866,  and  for  several  years 
was  a  member  of  the  Standing  Committee  ;  and  I  as  an  avowed  Low  Church- 


CHAPTER  VII. 


107 


4th.  Section. 

man,  lield  tlie  office  of  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  from  1863  nntil 
I  resigned  in  1868  on  account  of  the  action  of  the  General  Convention.  And  the 
ruling'majority  allow  the  Low  Churchmen  to  have  one  clerical  and  one  lay  deputy 
in  the  General  Convention.  Hence  I  separate  from  the  Bishop  and  Convention  of 
New  Jersey  with  feelings  of  respect  and  admiration. 

ii.  Oct.  29,  Dr.  Garrison  ;  xii.  29 ;  xiii.  8  ;  xiv.  4. 

(5)  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher  to  the  Rt.  Rev.  Horatio  Potter,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  York,  dated  Sept.  11,  1871  :  “  After  careful  deliberation,  I  have  de¬ 
cided  to  request  my  name  to  be  removed  from  the  list  of  clergy  in  canonical  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  P.  E.  C.  in  your  diocese. . .  .1  am  fully  persuaded  that  the  section  of 
Episcopalians  with  whom  I  sympathize,  legitimately  represent  the  martyred 
founders  of  the  Church  of  England. . .  .Retiring  from  an  active  ministry  of  over 
twenty-seven  years  in  this  portion  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  I  think  it  proper 
briefly  to  state  the  leading  causes  of  this  withdrawal.  ..  .The  service  for  Infant 
Baptism. . .  .teaches  dangerous  errors. . .  .a  service  capable  of  at  least  seven  differ¬ 
ent  interpretations.  The  Catechism,  the  office  of  Institution,  are  capable  of  semi- 
Romish  interpretation. ..  .The  Canon  passed  at  the  last  General  Convention,  still 
further  limiting  the  tender  of  courtesies  and  fraternal  respect  to  ministers  of  other 
churches. ..  .The  whole  tone  of  exclusiveness  in  our  Church,  proceeding  from  the 
prevailing  idea  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  to  a  valid  ministry 
. . .  .The  punishment  for  omitting  controverted  expressions  in  a  human  service,  or 
for  preaching  the  Gospel  where  their  conscience  dictated — penalties  as  great  as  if 
they  had  violated  the  Ten  Commandments. ..  .Studying  the  tone  of  our  late 
Diocesan  Conventions,  the  Declaration  of  Bishops,  and  the  spirit  of  the  High 
Church  Episcopal  press,  I  feel  no  hope  of  any  legislation  by  the  coming  General 
Convention  which  will  give  relief  adequate  to* the  present  emergency. . .  .With  a 
heartfelt  wish  that  you  may  be  blessed  in  your  work,  and  that  the  Church,  of 
which  you  are  so  important  an  officer,  may  remain  true  to  the  old  faith  of  its  founders, 
and  be  greatly  useful  in  saving  souls,  I  remain. . .  .Mason  Gallagher.” 

(6)  The  resignations  of  several  who  left  the  P.  E.  C.  after  the  organization  of 
the  R.  E.  C.  are  quoted  under  the  caption  Low  in  Chapter  III.  (xi.  26).  They 
are  all  in  substance  the  same  as  the  above.  They  all  represent  the  same  principles 
as  in  (xi.) 

(7)  Restoration  after  resignation,  (ii.  July  8,  1874;  Differences  viii.) 

(8)  The  above  cases  of  the  previous  withdrawal  of  the  four  who  met  on  Nov. 

12  (vii.  1-5),  and  the  other  cases  referred  to  (vii.  6)  will  show  the  reasons  for  leav¬ 
ing  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  the  spirit  of  sadness  and  not  resentment  with  which  the  Old 
Evangelicals  of  the  P.  E.  C.  have  felt  themselves  obliged  to  separate  from  their 
former  associates . xiv. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


DEPOSITION  OP  BISHOP  CUMMINS. 


Contexts  : — (1).  Acknowledgment  of  receipt  of  Resignation.  —  (2). 
Formal  notice. — (3).  Canon. — (4).  Deposition  record. — (5).  New  Canon. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  Nov.  13.  Bishop  Smith  informally  and  kindly  acknowledges  the  receipt  of 
Bishop  Cummins’  letter  of  resignation.  B.  A. 

(2)  Nov.  22.  Bishop  Smith  writes :  “  Hoboken,  N.  J.,  November  22,  1873. — 
Rt.  Rev.  Geo.  D.  Cummins,  D.D.,  late  assistant  Bishop  of  Kentucky  :  Upon  the  evi¬ 
dence  of  a  printed  copy  of  your  letter  to  me  dated  November  10th,  1873,  in  the  hands 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Perkins,  a  member  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  Kentucky,  at  a 
meeting  of  said  Committee  duly  convened  in  the  vestry-room  of  Christ  Church, 
Louisville,  on  the  18th  day  of  November,  1873,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
Canon  Eighth,  Title  II.  of  the  Digest,  did  certify  to  me  that  the  Rt.  Rev.  George 
David  Cummins,  D.D.,  for  some  time  assistant  Bishop  of  Kentucky,  has  abandoned 
the  communion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  In  accordance  with  the  second 
paragraph  of  the  same  Canon,  it  becomes  my  painful  duty  to  give  you  official  no¬ 
tice  ‘  that  unless  you  shall  within  six  months  make  declaration  that  the  fact  alleged 
in  said  certificate  is  false,  you  will  be  deposed  from  the  ministry  of  this  Church.” — 
B.  B.  Smith,  Bishop  of  Kentucky,  and  Presiding  Bishop.” 

ii.  Nov.  29  and  30,  1873,  Bishops  ;  Dec.  1,  Bishops. 

This  is  a  copy  from  the  manuscript.  The  substance  is  quoted  in  the  Act  of 
Deposition,  June  24,  1874,  (viii.  4). 

(3)  The  Canon  referred  to  reads  as  follows  :  Canon  8,  Title  II.  “  If  any  Bishop 
without  availing  himself  of  the  provisions  of  §  xvi.  of  Canon  13  of  Title  I.  abandon 
the  Communion  of  this  Church,  either  by  open  renunciation  of  the  doctrine,  disci¬ 
pline,  and  worship  of  this  Church,  or  by  a  formal  admission  into  any  religious  body 
not  in  communion  with  the  same,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Standing  Committee  of 
the  Diocese  to  make  certificate  of  the  fact  to  the  senior  Bishop,  which  certificate  shall 
be  recorded,  and  shall  be  taken  and  deemed  as  equivalent  to  a  renunciation  of  the 
ministry  by  the  Bishop  himself.  Notice  shall  then  be  given  to  said  Bishop  receiving 
the  certificate  that  unless  he  shall,  within  six  months,  make  declaration  that  the  facts 
alleged  in  said  certificate  are  false,  he  will  be  deposed  from  the  ministry  of  this 
Church.  And  if  such  declaration  be  not  made  within  six  months  as  aforesaid,  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  senior  Bishop,  with  the  consent  of  the  majority  of  the  House  of 
Bishops,  to  depose  from  the  ministry  the  Bishop  so  certified  as  abandoning,  and  to 
pronounce  and  record  in  the  presence  of  two  or  more  Bishops,  that  he  has  been  so 
deposed  :  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  if  the  Bishop  so  certified  as  abandoning,  shall 
transmit  to  the  senior  Bishop  a  retraction  of  the  acts  or  declarations  constituting 
his  offence,  the  Bishop  may,  at  his  discretion,  abstain  from  any  further  proceedings. 

(108) 


CHAPTER  YIH. 


109 


3d  Section. 

[Note  a.]  “  Canon  of  1859.”  [In  consequence  of  tlie  secession  of  Bisliop  Ives,  who 
joined  the  Church  of  Rome  ?] 

(4)  Bisliop  Cummins  was  deposed  according  to  the  Canon  above  recited,  on 
June  24,  1874,  as  reported  in  the  Philadelphia  Bulletin  of  July  8.  Viz. : 

“  Whereas,  The  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky,  duly  convened 
in  the  vestry-room  of  Christ  Church,  Louisville,  on  the  18th  day  of  November,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  1873,  did  certify  to  me,  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  B.  Smith,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Bishop  of  Kentucky,  and  senior  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States,  the  fact  that  Right  Rev.  George  David  Cummins,  D.D.,  for 
some  time  assistant  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky,  had  abandoned  the  com¬ 
munion  of  said  Church,  which  certificate  is  in  the  words  following  :  ‘  The  Standing 
Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky,  duly  convened  in  accordance  with  Canon  8, 
Title  II.,  do  hereby  certify  to  the  senior  Bishop  above  named,  that  Right  Rev. 
George  David  Cummins,  D.D.,  for  some  time  assistant  Bishop  of  the  said  Diocese 
of  Kentucky,  has  abandoned  the  communion  of  said  Church,  of  which  due  record 
was  made.  And  whereas,  upon  receiving  said  notice  I  gave  notice,  on  the  22d  day 
of  November,  to  the  above-named  Right  Rev.  George  David  Cummins,  D.D.,  that 
unless  he  shall,  within  six  months,  make  declaration  that  the  facts  alleged  in  said 
certificate  are  false,  he  will  be  deposed  from  the  ministry  of  this  Church.  And 
whereas,  no  such  declaration  has  been  made  within  said  time,  neither  has  the  Right 
Rev.  George  David  Cummins,  D.D.,  transmitted  to  me  any  retraction  of  the  acts  or 
declarations  constituting  his  offence  :  Be  it  therefore  known  that  on  this  24th  day 
of  June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1874,  in  the  vestry-room  of  St.  Peter’s  Church, 
New  York  city,  I,  Benjamin  Bosworth  Smith,  above-named,  and  senior  Bishop  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  with  the  consent  of  a  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  as  hereinbefore  enumerated,  viz.  : 
[here  follow  the  names  of  35  Bishops  with  the  names  of  their  Dioceses],  and  in 
terms  of  the  Canon  in  such  cases  made  and  provided,  do  pronounce  the  said  George 
David  Cummins,  D.D.,  deposed,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  from  the  ministry  of 
this  Church,  and  from  all  the  rights,  privileges,  powers,  and  dignities  pertaining  to 
the  office  of  Bishop  of  the  same.  Iu  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  Amen.  B.  B.  Smith,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky,  and  senior 
Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  Done  in  the 
presence  of  Alfred  Lee,  Bishop  of  Delaware  ;  William  Bacon  Stevens,  Bishop  of  the 
Diocese  of  Pennsylvania  ;  M.  A.  De  Wolfe  Howe,  Bishop  of  Central  Pennsylvania.” 

Now  these  documents,  compared  with  the  Canon  as  recited,  show  that  the  depo¬ 
sition  was  in  strict  accordance  with  the  Canon.  The  whole  has  been  given  at 
length  to  compare  with  the  “  Null  and  Void  ”  proclamation . . x.  5,  7,  8. 

(5)  (iii.  Nov.  8,  1874.  Abandoned).  The  Canon  was  so  changed  as  to  allow  im¬ 
mediate  inhibition . iii,  Oct.  26. 


V  J 


CHAPTER  IX. 

CALL  TO  ORGANIZE. 


Contexts: — (1).  Note. — (2).  Principles. — (3).  For  Episcopalians  only. — 
(4  to  9).  Unpremeditated. — (10).  Letter  Dimissory. — (11).  A  Layman  re¬ 
tracts. — (12  to  15).  Erroneous  reports. — (16).  Call  made  public,  Nov.  26. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  “  New  York,  November  15,  1873. — Dear  Brother:  The  following  circular- 
letter  has  been  prepared *in  consultation  with  a  few  friends  like-minded  with  myself, 
who  are  now,  or  have  been,  ministers  and  laymen  in  the  P.  E.  C.  It  is  sent  to  you 
for  your  earnest  consideration.  If  approved  by  you,  please  sign  your  name  to  it,  and 
thus  give  your  consent  to  the  transfer  of  your  name  to  the  original  document  for 
publication  and  more  general  circulation. — Your  Brother  in  the  Lord,  George 
David  Cummins.  Address  me  at  No.  11  East  57th  Street,  New  York,  and  tele¬ 
graph  your  reply,  if  agreeable  to  you.” 

(2)  •'*  New  York,  November  13,  1873. — Dear  Brother :  The  Lord  has  put  it  into 
the  hearts  of  some  of  His  servants  who  are  or  have  been,  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  restoring  the  old  paths  of  their  fathers,  and  of  returning  to  the  use  of  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1785,  set  forth  by  the  General  Convention  of  that  year,  under  the 
especial  guidance  of  the  venerable  William  White,  D.D.,  afterwards  the  first 
Bishop  of  the  same  Church  in  this  country.  The  chief  features  of  that  Prayer- 
Book,  as  distinguished  from  the  one  now  in  use,  are  the  following  :  1.  The  word 
‘  Priest  ’  does  not  appear  in  the  Book,  and  there  is  no  countenance  whatever  to  the 
errors  of  Sacerdotalism.  2.  The  Baptismal  Offices,  the  Confirmation  Office,  the 
Catechism,  and  the  Order  for  the  administration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  contain  no 
sanction  of  the  errors  of  Baptismal  Regeneration,  the  Real  Presence  of  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  in  the  elements  of  the  Communion,  and  of  a  Sacrifice  offered 
by  a  Priest  in  that  Sacred  Feast.  These  are  the  main  features  that  render  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1785  a  thoroughly  Scriptural  Liturgy,  such  as  all  Evangelical 
Christians  who  desire  Liturgical  Worship  can  use  with  a  good  conscience.  On 
Tuesday,  the  1st  [2d]  day  of  December,  1873,  a  meeting  will  be  held  in  Association 
Hall,  corner  of  Twenty-third  Street  and  Fourth  Avenue,  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
at  10  o’clock  A.M.,  to  organize  an  Episcopal  Church  on  the  basis  of  the  Prayer  Book 
of  1785 — a  basis  broad  enough  to  embrace  all  who  hold  ‘  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints,’  as  that  faith  is  maintained  by  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Christendom  ; 
with  no  exclusive  and  unchurching  dogmas  toward  Christian  brethren  who  differ 
from  them  in  their  views  of  Polity  and  Church  Order.  This  meeting  yon  are  cor¬ 
dially  and  affectionately  invited  to  attend.  The  purpose  of  the  meeting  is  to  organ¬ 
ize,  and  not  to  discuss  the  expediency  of  organizing.  A  verbatim  reprint  of  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1785  is  in  press,  and  will  be  issued  during  the  month  of  December. 
May  the  Lord  guide  you  and  usbv  His  Holy  Spirit. — George  David  Cummins.” 

(110) 


CHAPTER  IX. 


ill 


3d  Section. 

(3)  This  Call  was  presented  exclusively  to  those  “  wlio  are  or  have  been  minis¬ 
ters  or  laymen  in  the  P.  E.  C.”  This  principle  was  immediately  approved  by  out¬ 
side  advisers  in  whose  judgment  we  placed  confidence.  It  was  adopted  by  all 
who  took  part  in  the  first  General  Council.  Consequently,  all  in  authority  having 
been  members  of  the  Old  Evangelical  party  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  desiring  to  retain 
the  familiar  service  and  form  of  Church  government  (excepting  those  parts  to 
which  the  Old  Evangelicals  had  long  objected)  they  were  enabled  to  make  the 
necessary  changes  on  the  most  conservative  principles,  in  place  of  producing  a  sys¬ 
tem  that  might  have  satisfied  no  one,  if  all  who  agreed  with  the  Declaration  of 
Principles  had  been  invited  to  take  part  in  the  organization,  (xi.  34,  36).  And  here 
I  will  present  my  individual  views  on  this  point,  to  meet  the  charge  of  wrong  in 
establishing  a  new  Church  in  place  of  joining  with  one  already  established,  where 
there  is  no  essential  difference.  I  am  convinced  that  there  are  various  instincts  or 
habits  of  mind  that  require  different  church  arrangements.  Brought  up  in  St. 
John’s  P.  E.  C.  in  New  York,  and  always  claiming  to  be  an  Episcopalian,  I  have 
habitually  attended  the  Lutheran,  and  German  Reformed,  and  the  Methodist 
Churches,  when  out  of  reach  of  Episcopal  services  during  my  engagement  in  civil 
engineering  (xvi.  1).  I  believe  that  the  Methodist  Church  is  doing  more  good 
than  any  other  Church  in  the  country,  and  that  it  would  be  a  national  calamity  for 
it  to  abandon  its  peculiarities.  But  they-  do  not  suit  my  instincts  or  habits.  Then 
from  1849,  when  I  first  came  to  Passaic,  until  1859,  when  we  inaugurated  St.  John’s 
Episcopal  Church,  I  had  a  pew  in  the  Dutch  Church  and  regularly  attended  their 
service,  because  there  was  no  Episcopal  Church  nearer  than  Paterson.  And  I  now 
attend  the  Dutch  Church  in  Passaic  as  frequently  as  my  own  in  New  York,  because 
much  more  convenient.  This  comes  nearer  to  my  views  than  any  Church  except 
the  R.  E.  C.  But  I  feel  the  want  of  the  Episcopal  service  ;  and  that  to  them  would 
be  disagreeable.  There  is  no  principle  involved,  except  that  the  service  should  so 
harmonize  with  the  feelings  that  the  form  itself  should  least  distract  the  attention. 
— Then  the  Congregational  system  I  only  know  from  report.  I  know  that  it  has 
done  noble  service  in  the  cause  of  Christianity.  But  it  is  to  me  a  matter  of  surprise 
that  any  man  should  be  willing  to  go  through  a  long  course  of  study  to  prepare 
himself  for  the  ministry  to  meet  the  high  requirements  of  this  age,  and  then  be 
subject  to  the  views  of  an  individual  congregation.  I  do  not  hold  that  education  is 
indispensable.  A  Varley  or  a  Moody  may  be  vastly  more  valuable  than  the  man 
who  can  claim  the  highest  education.  But  we  all  know  that  education  is  a  power. 
The  Congregational  system  is  the  opposite  of  the  Episcopalian.  The  Puritans  came 
to  this  country  to  enjoy  a  “Government  without  a  King  and  a  Church  without  a 
Bishop.”  I  do  not  deny  that  this  may  be  best  for  them,  but  all  the  founders  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  are  opposed  to  Congregationalism  for  themselves,  and  each  is  entitled  to  his 
preference.  Those  who  prefer  the  Congregational  system  can  go  to  a  regular  Con¬ 
gregational  Church  and  be  a  power  for  good,  while  the  same  power  with  us  would 
only  produce  confusion. — Our  form  of  Episcopal  government  is  analogous  to  our 
form  of  civil  government.  Onr  Presiding  Bishop  and  General  Council  represent 
partially  the  President  and  Congress  of  the  U.  S.  A.  Our  Bishops  of  Synods,  and 
the  corresponding  Synods  represent  the  Governors  and  State  Legislatures.  Our 
congregations  in  proportion  to  their  communicants  send  representatives  to  these 
ecclesiastical  legislatures.  Thus  each  congregation,  in  place  of  being  a  separate 


112 


CHAPTER  IX. 


3d  Section. 

organization  to  act  independently  of  all  tlie  others,  is  under  the  control  of  all  the 
others  by  their  representatives  collected,  and  has  its  share  in  controlling  all  the 
others  within  the  limits  of  the  invariable  “  Declaration  of  Principles,”  and  of  tho 
Constitution,  to  be  altered  with  difficulty  ;  and  of  the  Canons,  with  less  difficulty. 
Thus  forming  one  harmonious  whole,  the  minister  can  change  from  one  congrega¬ 
tion  to  another;  and  the  rector  and  wardens  and  vestrymen  attend  to  their 
respective  duties  upon  general  principles  laid  down  in  the  Rubrics  and  the  Canons. 
And  in  the  P.  E.  C.  the  rector  is  President  of  the  civil  corporation.  These  (with  the 
modifications  above  referred  to)  are  the  principles  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  which  always 
satisfied  the  Old  Evangelicals,  and  these  we  wish  to  retain.  One  may  say  that  the 
surplice  ought  to  be  retained  by  Canon.  Another  that  the  surplice  means  sacerdo¬ 
talism  (i.  Dec.  9,  1874,  Phila.)  But  the  whole  R.  E.  C.  assembled  in  council  agreed 
to  leave  the  dress  to  the  choice  of  the  rector  (Constitution,  Art.  ix).  One  may 
desire  to  have  the  service  in  one  way  and  another  in  another  way.  This  is  not  a 
question  for  the  vestry  to  act  on.  The  Council  has  defined  by  Rubric  and  by  Can¬ 
on  how  far  the  rector  shall  be  restricted  and  how  far  he  shall  be  left  to  his  own 
discretion,  not  only  in  one  congregation,  but  in  all  alike.  I  have  served  for  many 
years  as  Senior  Warden,  and  am  convinced  that  no  member  of  the  congregation 
knows  as  well  as  the  rector  the  general  wish  of  the  congregation,  and  as  a  man  of 
common  sense  he  will  use  his  discretionary  powers  with  proper  j  udgment.  The  R. 
E,  C.  depends  very  much  on  the  Rubric  of  common  sense.  The  persons  who  make 
most  noise  may  form  but  a  small  minority.  In  one  case  within  my  knowledge  in 
the  P.  E.  C.  this  was  carried  to  such  extent  as  to  force  the  rector  to  offer  his  resig¬ 
nation.  The  congregation  learning  this  fact,  rose  up  to  stop  the  movement,  and  it 
wras  proved  that  the  whole  opposition  amounted  to  two  men  who  professed  to  repre¬ 
sent  the  general  wish.  Then  the  rector  withdrew  his  proposed  resignation,  these 
two  men  with  their  families  retired,  and  the  congregation  in  perfect  harmony  in¬ 
creased  rapidly.  Now  from  the  above  it  is  evident  that  the  R.  E.  C.  fills  a  blank. 
Many  require  just  the  services  and  the  Church  government,  together  with  Protest¬ 
ant  doctrines  that  are  here  found,  and  not  found  elsewhere.  All  that  we  ask  is  to 
let  us  have  a  Church  that  corresponds  with  the  views  of  the  Old  Evangelicals  in 
the  P.  E.  C.;  ready  to  receive  by  letter  from  other  Churches  all  who  agree  with 
these  views,  and  to  dismiss  by  letter  to  other  Churches  those  who  do  not  agree  with 
these  views,  or  who  for  any  cause  desire  such  letters. 

ix.  10  ;  xi.  28 ;  xiv.  10 ;  xvi.  22,  23,  28. 

(4)  This  Call  to  organize  was  the  unpremeditated  result  of  an  unpremeditated 
meeting  of  Bishop  Cummins  and  the  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith  and  the  Rev.  Mason 
Gallagher  and  myself,  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Smith  in  Passaic,  N.  J.,  on  Nov.  12, 
1873.  Thither  the  Bishop  retired  from  New  York  for  the  sake  of  rest,  after  having 
sent  in  manuscript  and  by  mail,  to  Bishop  Smith  at  Hoboken,  his  resignation,  dated 
Nov.  10  (vii.  1).  Thither  I  wrent  about  noon  by  no  previous  appointment,  and  was 
then  for  the  first  time  introduced  to  Bishop  Cummins.  In  the  afternoon,  the  Rev. 
Mason  Gallagher  came  in  to  call  on  the  Bishop,  with  the  knowledge  that  he  would 
be  there,  from  having  met  with  him  on  the  way. 

(5)  The  conversation  soon  turned  on  the  resignation  of  the  Bishop,  which  all 
approved.  Then  on  the  Rome  ward  tendencies  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  on  this  point 
the  conversation  must  have  occupied  hours,  according  to  my  recollection  of  the  facts 


CHAPTER  IX. 


113 


5th  Section. 

related.  We  were  simply  spending  together  a  social  afternoon  and  evening  in  re¬ 
lating  our  knowledge  of  facts  in  which  we  all  felt  a  deep  interest.  Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins,  for  his  reasons  given,  had  just  withdrawn  from  the  P.  E.  C.  on  Nov.  10  (vii. 
1).  I  had  done  the  same,  for  the  same  reasons,  on  Oct.  30,  eleven  days  before 
Bishop  Cummins  (iv.  8).  The  two  clergymen  had  done  the  same,  for  the  same  rea¬ 
sons,  several  years  before  (vii.  2,  5).  This  conversation  resulted  in  action,  as  shown 
above.  Providence  brought  us  there  for  that  purpose,  as  I  believe.  And  about  the 
same  time  there  was  another  remarkable  concurrence  of  three  persons  who  had  pre¬ 
viously  all  been  strangers  to  each  other,  which  proved  that  Providence  was  direct¬ 
ing  men  without  their  own  knowledge. 

(6)  A  few  days  after  this  conference  I  tried  to  recall  the  time  at  which  the  con¬ 
versation  took  a  practical  turn,  but  I  could  not.  Neither  of  the  others  can  remem¬ 
ber  it.  I  think  that  there  was  no  definite  beginning  on  this  point,  but  that  it  grew 
imperceptibly,  until  it  became  a  settled  determination,  somewhere  between  the 
afternoon  of  Nov.  12  and  before  10  A.  M.  on  Nov.  13. 

(7)  Before  10  A.  m.  of  Nov.  13,  the  Bishop  said  to  Mr.  Smith  :  “  Take  pen  and 
paper  and  write  as  I  dictate.”  The  call,  dated  Nov.  13,  was  then  written,  approved 
by  all,  and  the  Bishop  signed  his  name  to  it.  He  then  left  for  New  York  by  the 
noon  train,  taking  the  manuscript  with  him,  and  with  no  remark  about  having 
copies  printed. 

(8)  Two  days  after  this,  it  was  proposed  to  the  Bishop  to  have  the  call  printed  in 
the  form  of  a  circular,  and  sent  by  mail.  He  then  wrote  the  part  dated  Nov.  15, 
on  a  slip  of  paper,  and  proposed  to  have  100  copies.  This  slip  and  the  original  call 
were  put  into  the  hands  of  the  printer  with  directions  to  print  1,000  copies. 

The  two  were  by  him  combined,  and  printed  and  delivered  on  the  evening  of 
Nov.  16.  So  that  the  first  that  left  New  York  by  mail  was  on  the  morning  of  Nov. 
17, 1873. 

(9)  To  show  that  this  action  was  unpremeditated  and  solemn,  I  will  quote,  as 

nearly  as  I  can  remember,  my  own  words  to  the  Bishop,  when,  on  Nov.  13,  I  re¬ 
turned  the  paper  after  having  signed  it :  “I  would  not  have  done  that  yesterday  ! 
I  have  seen  so  much  of  the  backing  and  filling  of  the  Low  Church  clergymen, 
that  I  have  lost  all  confidence  in  them,  and  since  1869  have  not  attended  their  meet¬ 
ings.  But  I  have  seen  enough  yesterday  and  to-day  to  convince  me  that  you  are 
not  acting  under  a  temporary  excitement,  to  back  down  as  soon  as  the  excitement 
is  over.  Where  you  put  your  foot,  there  you  will  keep  it,  and  I  shall  be  satisfied  if 
this  result  in  nothing  more  than  a  single  parish  in  New  York  for  the  present.  But 
you  must  make  up  your  mind  to  bear  all  kinds  of  abuse,  and  the  worst  will  come 
from  the  Low  Churchmen.  This  action  will  place  them  between  the  upper  and 
nether  millstones  . . xii.  48. 

(10)  First  Letter  Dimissory.  The  Kev.  Marshall  B.  Smith  did  not  immedi¬ 
ately  sign  the  Call  on  Nov.  13th,  saying  that  he  could  not  honorably  do  so  at 
present,  since  he  held  offices  in  the  Dutch  Church;  but  as  soon  as  the  Church  should 
be  organized  he  would  apply  for  letters  of  dismission.  Still,  it  was  important  that 
the  organization  should  be  kept  in  the  desired  direction,  and  one  person  at  the  first 
Council  might  make  an  important  difference.  So,  after  reflecting  on  the  subject 
for  a  few  days,  he  determined  to  lay  the  whole  subject  before  the  President  of  the 
Classis,  and  to  abide  by  his  decision.  Then,  taking  a  printed  copy  of  the  Call,  he 


114 


CHAPTER  IX. 


10th  Section. 

left  the  house,  and  on  his  return  reported  the  interview  in  substance  thus.  The 
President  said  :  “We  all  know  perfectly  well  why  you  came  to  us,  and  that  you 
would  have  gone  to  this  Church,  had  it  been  in  existence.  You  can,  with  perfect 
honor,  sign  this  paper;  then  call  the  Classis  together,  then  resign  your  offices,  and 
ask  for  a  Letter  of  Dismissal  to  the  new  Church. 

ii.  April  22,  1874 ;  Rev.  M.  B.  S.;  vii.  2,  3;  xiv.  6. 

(11)  I  was  present  with  Bishop  Cummins  when  a  gentleman,  who  was  a  stranger 
to  both  of  us,  called,  gave  his  name,  and  requested  to  withdraw  his  adhesion, 
which  he  had  sent  by  mail,  signed  to  a  copy  of  the  Call,  saying  that  he  was  so 
badgered  about  it  that  he  could  find  no  peace.  The  Bishop,  smiling,  said,  “  Cer¬ 
tainly,  if  you  desire  it.’’  He  expressed  his  thanks,  saying  that  he  could  not  have 
received  a  greater  favor.  We  were  well  satisfied  to  get  rid  of  such  soldiers,  before 
the  attack  that  we  expected  to  receive. 

(12)  Shortly  after  the  organization  on  Dec.  2,  1873,  it  was  asserted,  in  print,  that 
Bishop  Cummins  did  not  resign  until  his  financial  support  was  promised.  Then 
(i.  Dec.  31,  1873,)  that  “ten  laymen  in  New  York  had  subscribed  $10,000  each  to 
help  Bishop  Cummins  in  his  work.”  Then  (ii.  Dec.  3,  1874,)  the  Editor  of  the 
New  TorJc  Republic  says  :  “  Bishop  Cummins  kept  faith  with  the  promises  which 
he  made  to  his  liberal-minded  brethren  in  the  old  Church.  Whether  they  all  kept 
faith  with  him,  is  one  of  the  secrets  belonging  to  the  reform  movement  which  may 
some  day  come  to  light.” 

(13)  Now,  there  are  no  such  secrets.  Bishop  Cummins  has,  on  different  public 
occasions,  asserted  that  “  he  consulted  with  no  man  ”  when  he  resigned.  This  is 
confirmed  by  the  complaints  of  Low-Church  Bishops  and  clergy  with  whom  he  had 
been  accustomed  to  act,  that  he  did  not  consult  with  them  before  he  took  this  step.  ' 
With  my  intimate  knowledge  of  all  that  occurred  on  and  after  Nov.  12, 1873,  I  have 
no  reason  to  believe  that  there  was  any  understanding  as  to  the  formation  of  a  new 
Church,  with  any  single  individual,  before  the  Call  of  Nov.  13  was  determined  on 
(ix.  7;  xiii.  18  to  22).  And  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  testifies  to  the  same  (ii.  June  10, 1874, 
Open  Letter). 

(14)  Also,  I  have  no  evidence,  nor  do  I  believe  or  suspect,  that  Bishop  Cummins, 
before  the  Call  of  Nov.  13,  had  received,  on  account  of  a  new  organization,  any 
support,  or  any  promise  of  support,  from  any  individual  whatever.  And  after  that 
Call,  he  at  first  refused  to  receive  pecuniary  assistance  as  a  Bishop;  saying  that  he 
would  not  be  a  burden  on  the  Sustentation  fund,  but  depend  upon  an  income  as 
minister  of  a  parish;  until  it  became  evident  that  this  was  impracticable. 

(15)  Also,  the  statement  that  $100,000  were  subscribed  had  no  foundation  in 
fact.  We  did  not  deny  it,  because  by  common  consent  we  determined  to  be  abso¬ 
lutely  silent,  and  let  our  enemies  say  what  they  pleased  (xiv.  3).  This  statement 
was  doubtless  well  meant,  but  it  has  probably  prevented  contributions  that  would 
have  been  made,  had' the  fact  been  known  that  the  bulk  of  the  “  Sustentation  fund  ” 
lias  been  contributed  by  a  few  individuals  at  the  time  that  the  money  was  required; 
and  although  no  bill  has  been  left  standing,  there  has  been  no  “  fund  ”  to  draw  on. 

(16)  (i.  Nov.  26,  1873.)  The  call  to  organize  was  first  made  public  by  Church  and 
State.  Then,  Nov.  27,  by  the  Tribune.  The  only  objection  to  publishing  the  call, 
was  the  danger  of  being  crowded  by  curiosity-seekers.  It  was  probably  generally 
known  at  that  time  among  active  Episcopalians.  It  was  neither  secret  nor  confi- 


CHAPTER  IX. 


115 


16th.  Section. 

dential.  Any  one  identified  with  the  movement,  took  as  many  copies  as  he  pleased, 
and  sent  them  to  whom  he  pleased.  Sometimes  the  answers  were  favorable,  some¬ 
times  unfavorable.  But  this  call  was  private,  so  far  that  it  was  restricted  to  per¬ 
sons  who  could  be  vouched  for  by  some  one  identified,  as  a  person  for  whom  the 
call  w'as  intended,  and  no  one  was  allowed  to  vote  at  the  organization  except  those 
so  identified,  and  who  had  signed  the  call .  x.  16. 


CHAPTER  X.' 


ATTEMPTS  TO  ARREST  THE  R.  E.  C. 


Contents  : — (1  to  9.)  Null  and  Void  proclamation. — (10  to  14.)  Internal 
effects. — (15).  Card  of  the  Philadelphians. — (16.)  Small  attempt  on  Pec.  2. — 
(17  to  22).  Telegram  to  Chicago. — (23.)  Trip  to  Chicago. — (24.)  Trip  to  Peoria. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  (ii.  Dec.  1.  Null  and  Void.)  This  short  document  would  obviously  convey 
to  all  acquainted  with  Canon  law,  false  impressions  as  to  facts  on  six  different  points. 

(2)  First.  That  at  a  meeting  in  “  Hoboken  on  Dec.  1,”  the  action  occurred — 
while  from  the  newspapers  the  meetings  appear  to  have  been  in  New  York. 

ii.  Nov.  30,  1873  Times ;  Dec.  1,  Trib.;  Dec.  1,  Post. 

(3)  Second.  That  Bishop  Smith  did  then  and  there  preside  at  a  canonical  meet¬ 

ing — while  no  such  meeting  could  have  been  held  ;  because,  Canon  7,  Title  III.  re¬ 
quires  for  all  cases  not  specifically  provided  for,  that  every  member  of  the  body 
shall  be  notified  and  a  majority  of  the  whole  must  be  present  to  authorize  any  ac¬ 
tion  except  to  adjourn,  and  from  the  newspapers  it  appears  that  only  five  or  six 
Bishops  were  present,  and  Bishop  Pearse  says  that  he  only  heard  of  this  action 
“  from  the  press  despatches,”  and  he  shows  its  absurdity . ii.  Dec.  31,  1873. 

(4)  Third.  That  by  the  Canon  quoted,  the  meeting  had  that  power — while 
neither  that  Canon  nor  any  other  gives  such  power  to  such  meeting,  or  to  the 
whole  House  of  Bishops. 

(5)  Fourth.  That  the  meeting  did  then  and  there,  with  all  due  formality,  pro¬ 
nounce  the  decision  “  Null  and  Void” — while  we  cannot  suppose  that  the  Bishops 
would  so  stultify  themselves  as  to  have  the  formality,  when  they  doubtless  knew 
that  they  had  not  the  power.  The  reports  quoted  in  (x.  2)  suppose  that  the 
meeting  may  have  been  for  the  purpose  of  giving  to  Bishop  Cummins  formal  no¬ 
tice  that  he  would  be  deposed  in  six  months.  But  the  reporter  did  not  know  of 
the  existence  of  that  notice  on  Nov.  22,  which  is  now  for  the  first  time  put  in  print. 

•  viii.  2. 

(6)  Fifth.  That  all  the  requisite  formalities  were  observed — while  the  action 
was  defective  in  several  particulars.  They  reject  the  canonical  title  “  Rt.  Rev.”  or 
“  Bishop,”  and  say  ‘‘  George  David  Cummins,  D.D.,”  and  then  “  Dr.  Cummins.” 
This  would  vitiate  the  document,  and  he  might  deny  that  he  was  the  person  men¬ 
tioned.  Then  “  Canonicus  ”  in  the  Episcopalian  of  Dec.  17,  1873,  says  :  “  The  policy 
of  the  Church  law,  ever  since  the  time  of  the  Onderdonks  and  the  elder  Doane,  has 
been  to  make  it  ‘  hard  to  try  a  Bishop.’  And  Canons  9,  10,  11,  Title  II.,  “  On  the 
Trial  of  a  Bishop,”  fill  15  pages  of  the  Digest  with  all  kinds  of  minute  formalities  ; 
while  in  the  present  case  Bishop  Cummins  was  not  even  notified  that  his  case  was 
under  consideration,  and  after  the  sentence  “  Null  and  Void  ”  they  did  not  give 

(H6) 


CHAPTER  X. 


117 


6th  Section. 

him  any  notice  to  that  effect ;  and  all  that  he  knows  is  from  the  newspapers  ;  as  he 
answers  to  my  question  on  that  point. 

(7)  Sixth.  That  the  action  of  the  Bishops  was  based  upon  a  Canonical  present¬ 
ment  by  the  Standing  Committee  of  Kentucky,  while  there  was  probably  nothing 
of  the  kind.  Thus : 

Put  together  the  following  (viii.  2).  On  Nov.  22  Bishop  Smith  states  all  the  de¬ 
tails  of  time,  place,  and  circumstances,  respecting  the  action  of  the  Standing  Com¬ 
mittee,  and  those  details  legally  implied  that  each  member  of  the  Standing  Com¬ 
mittee  had  been  duly  notified  of  the  time  and  place  of  meeting,  and  that  a  majority 
of  the  Committee  had  come  together  from  their  distant  homes  to  the  said  place  at 
the  said  time,  or,  that  less  than  a  majority  having  met  under  these  conditions,  had 
adjourned  until  they  had  a  majority,  and  then  by  a  majority  vote  at  the  time  and 
place  mentioned,  had  taken  the  action  mentioned,  and  ordered  the  same  to  be 
officially  “  certified  ’’  to  the  Presiding  Bishop.  And  the  “  Official  Notice  ”  by  the 
Presiding  Bishop  legally  implied  that  he  had  received  this  document,  signed  by  the 
President  and  certified  by  the  secretary  of  the  Standing  Committee,  as  his  authority 
to  proceed  according  to  Canon. 

But  on  Dec.  1,  within  less  than  two  weeks  after  this  deliberate  Canonical  action 
(which  doubtless  took  place,  since  it  is  so  “certified”),  we  have  the  “  Null  and 
Void  ”  proclamation,  without  a  certificate  of  the  time,  place,  or  basis  of  the  action 
of  the  Standiog  Committee,  or  what  they  did,  or  that  they  did  anything,  or  had 
any  meeting,  or  knew  anything  about  it,  and  simply  “Notice.  . .  .received  from  the 
secretary. . .  .that  a  presentment. . .  .lias  been  prepared.”  (ii.  Dec.  1,  1873,  Null.) 

(8)  Again,  put  together  the  following:  The  five  or  six  Bishops  met  on  Satur¬ 
day,  Nov.  29,  for  the  supposed  purpose  of  deposing  Bishop  Cummins  without  a  trial 
(ii.  Nov.  29,  Post ;  Nov.  30,  Times ;  Dec.  1,  Tribune).  “Bishop  Potter  was  unable 
to  attend  on  account  of  engrossing  duties  ”  (ii.  Dec.  1,  Trib.)  Then,  Monday,  Dec.  1, 
comes  the  private  telegram  from  Kentucky — “  Charges  against  you  forwarded  from 
here  to-day  ”  (ii.  Dec.  1).  Then  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  early  enough  for 
insertion  in  the  Evening  Post,  we  have  the  Null  and  Void  proclamation  (ii. 
Dec.  1). 

Hence  the  inference,  that  on  Saturday,  Nov.  29,  the  Bishops,  finding  that  they 
would  stultify  themselves  by  an  immediate  deposition  after  the  canonical  notice  of 
Nov.  22  (viii.  2),  determined  upon  the  Null  and  Void  expedient  of  arresting  the 
organization  of  the  R.  E.  C.  appointed  for  Tuesday,  Dec.  2,  and  telegraphed  to  the 
“  Secretary  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky”  the  “present¬ 
ment  ”  that  “  has  been  prepared  ”  by  the  Bishops,  and  that  there  would  be  no  time 
to  call  the  Standing  Committee  together,  since  they  must  have  the  document 
printed  on  Monday  ;  and  on  the  receipt  of  a  corresponding  telegram  on  Monday 
(purporting  to  be  sent  by  the  “  Secretary  of  the  Standing  Committee,’’  and  without 
a  written  document  to  prove  that  the  “  secretary  ”  himself,  either  with  or  without 
authority,  had  any  hand  in  the  matter)  the  Null  and  Void  proclamation  was  imme¬ 
diately  sent  to  the  Evening  Post  for  publication  (ii.  Dec.  1). 

(9)  Now,  “  curses  like  chickens  come  home  to  roost,”  and  this  action  of  the 
Bishops  against  a  Bishop  degrades  their  office  by  the  assumption  that  a  Bishop 
may  be  discharged  with  as  little  formality  as  a  sexton  or  other  subordinate,  and 
without  even  the  official  courtesy  observed  by  civilians  in  all  cases.  And  this  proc. 


118 


CHAPTER  X. 


9th  Section. 

lamation  appears  to  have  been  “  Vox  et  preeterea  nihil,”  as  we  hear  no  more  on  the 
subject.  If  actually  recorded  among  the  Ads  of  the  Bishops,  their  secretary  will 
confer  a  favor  by  stating  all  that  is  recorded,  to  be  inserted  as  an  appendix.  (See 
Preface). 

(10)  To  show  the  internal  effect  of  this  movement,  I  state  the  following  from 
personal  knowledge  : 

About  10  A.  M.  on  Monday,  Dec.  1,  1873,  Bishop  Cummins  and  several  others,  in¬ 
cluding  myself,  were  engaged  in  preparing  for  the  organization  of  the  R.  E.  C.  at 
10  a.  m.  of  the  next  day.  The  Bishop  rose  to  receive  a  telegram.  He  turned  and 
said  :  “  Here  is  a  telegram  from  my  friend  in  Louisville.  He  says — ‘  Charges  against 
you  forwarded  from  here  to-day.’  Now  I  cannot  imagine  what  they  have  trumped 
up  against  me.  I  will  acknowledge  my  sins  towards  my  God.  But  as  to  man,  I 
cannot  imagine  what  they  can  say  against  me.” 

I  think  that  no  one  answered.  We  had  all  served  for  many  years  in  Diocesan 
Conventions,  and  were  familiar  with  Canon  law.  We  had  discussed  the  Canons 
that  bore  on  the  present  case,  and  had  reached  the  same  conclusion  as  Bishop 
Pearce  (ii.  Dec.  31),  and  knew  that  the  action  of  Nov.  22  (viii.  2)  terminated  the  mat¬ 
ter  for  six  months,  unless  some  charge  of  crime  or  immorality  should  supersede  that 
and  lead  to  a  trial  for  some  disgraceful  act.  The  countenance  of  the  Bishop  be¬ 
trayed  distress  for  a  short  time.  It  is  the  only  time  that  I  have  seen  him  lose  his 
perfect  self-control.  But  we  had  much  work  on  hand,  and  after  a  few  minutes’ 
silent  thought,  we  resumed  our  work  as  if  nothing  remarkable  had  occurred. 

(11)  In  the  evening,  a  friend,  but  not  identified  with  us,  entered  emphatically, 
and,  as  I  thought,  under  strong  excitement,  with  a  newspaper  in  his  hand.  “  See 
here  !”  said  he,  and  then  read  from  the  Evening  Post  of  Dec.  1,  the  Null  and  Void 
proclamation.  He  then  continued :  “  Now,  you  want  the  best  legal  advice  that  this 
city  can  afford,”  etc. 

(12)  This  explained  the  morning  telegram,  and  showed  that  the  charges  were 

not  as  we  supposed.  But  it  showed  that  the  Bishops  were  ready  to  adopt  any 
desperate  remedy  to  prevent  the  organization  proposed  for  the  next  day.  We  knew 
more  of  their  movements  in  this  matter  than  I  have  above  given  for  others  to  draw 
their  conclusions  from  (i.  Nov.  27).  We  also  knew  that  on  one  occasion  a  Bishop 
had  surrounded  himself  with  policemen  in  church.  We  could  not  imagine  what 
might  be  the  next  act  of  desperation.  Perhaps  a  Bishop  might  appear  the  next 
day  to  disperse  the  meeting,  and  it  was  arranged  that  a  layman  should  be  the 
Temporary  President,  to  announce  the  vote  that  would  complete  a  legal  organiza¬ 
tion  as  the  R.  E.  C.,  with  Bishop  Cummins  as  the  Presiding  Bishop,  as  it  would  be 
more  seemly  for  a  layman  than  for  a  clergyman  to  send  for  the  police,  and  eject 
any  one,  whoever  he  might  be,  that  should  attempt  to  deprive  us  of  our  civil 
rights . * . . . x.  16. 

(13)  All  this  was  discussed  at  times,  but  not  all  on  the  present  occasion.  Still, 
we  had  all  thought  it  over.  The  Bishop  remained  silent  until  all  who  desired  had 
discussed  the  matter.  Then,  keeping  his  arm  immovably  in  the  direction  of  this 
gentleman,  he  said  :  “  We  have  laid  down  our  course,  and  shall  not  swerve  from  it 
one  inch  for  anything  that  man  can  do  against  us.”  This  ended  the  discussion. 
In  a  short  time  I  found  an  opportunity  to  say  privately  to  the  Bishop,  “  I  was  glad 
to  find  that  we  had  a  general  who  did  not  show  the  white  feather  when  under  file.” 


CHAPTER  X. 


119 


14tli  Section. 

(14)  This  expression  of  the  Bishop  gives  the  key-note  to  all  the  movements  of 
the  R.  E.  C.:  “  We  have  laid  down  our  course,  and  shall  not  swerve  from  it  one 
inch  for  anything  that  man  can  do  against  us.”,  .ii.  Dec.  3, 1873,  Epis. ;  x.  23  ;  xiv.  1. 

CARD  OF  THE  PHILADELPHIANS. 

(15)  (ii.  Dec.  1,  1873,  Card.)  The  object  in  reprinting  this  Card  in  New  York 
on  the  day  before  the  proposed  organization,  is  very  evident  on  its  face.  No  blame 
could  attach  to  these  gentlemen  for  entertaining  the  views  expressed  and  for  gov¬ 
erning  their  own  action  accordingly.  But  the  case  assumes  a  different  aspect  when 
they  speak  for  Evangelicals  in  general,  and  first  issue  this  document  in  Philadel¬ 
phia,  and  then  have  it  reprinted  in  New  York. 

ii.  Dec.  17,  1873,  Rev.  ;  Jan.  21,  1874,  Cath.;  iii.  Feb.  8,  1875,  Jag. 

ORGANIZATION  ON  DEC.  2,  1873. 

(16)  No  serious  attempt  to  arrest  this  organization  occurred  ;  nor  would  it  have' 
taken  us  by  surprise  (x.  12).  A  small  attempt  was  made  by  four  young  men  (ii. 
Dec.  2  1873  ;  xii.  59,  “  Pagan  theory,”  under  “  Eucharistic  adoration  ”). 

TELEGRAM  TO  CHICAGO. 

(17)  (ii.  Dec.  12,  1873).  This  is  remarkable.  First.  It  appears  to  be  intended  to 

arrest  the  progress  of  the  new  Church  by  the  consecration  of  Bishop  Cheney,  as 
the  Null  and  Void  proclamation  was  to  arrest  its  organization . x.  1-14. 

(18)  Second.  It  is  sent  to  the  “  care  ”  of  the  one  against  whom  it  appears  to  be 
directed. 

(19)  Third.  It  recognized  Bishop  Cummins  as  Bishop,  although  in  the  Null  and 
Void  proclamation  he  is  called  “  George  D.  Cummins,”  and  “  Dr.  Cummins,”  and 
“  all  his  episcopal  acts  Null  and  Void.”  If  it  be  claimed  that  “  Rt.  Rev.”  be  only  by 
courtesy,  then  “  Dr.  C.  E.  Cheney,”  omitting  “  Rev.,”  is  an  insult. .  .ii.  Dec.  1,  1873. 

(20)  Fourth.  In  the  Canon  to  which  Bishop  Smith  refers,  an  Assistant  Bishop 

has  all  the  rights,  powers,  and  privileges,  the  same  as  any  other  Bishop,  except 
when  the  aged  or  infirm  Bishop  is  able  to  officiate,  then  “  The  Assistant  Bishop 
shall  perform  such  Episcopal  acts  and  exercise  such  Episcopal  anthoritv  within  the 
Diocese,  as  the  Bishop  shall  assign  to  him;”  and  this  is  signed  “  Bishop  of  Ken¬ 
tucky;”  so  that  it  applies  by  Canon  and  by  signature  only  to  the  Diocese  of 
Kentucky . ii.  Dec.  6,  1873,  Epis. 

(21)  Fifth.  It  admits  that  Episcopal  acts  by  Bishop  Cummins  done  in  Kentucky, 

would,  without  this  withdrawal,  be  canonical,  although  the  same  Bishop  Smith,  as 
“  Presiding  Bishop,”  had,  on  “Dec.  1,’’  declared  that  “  any  Episcopal  act  of  his 
pending  these  proceedings,  will  be  null  and  void.’’ . ii.  Dec.  1,  Null. 

(22)  Sixth.  It  appears  to  be  intended  to  operate  in  Illinois,  where  Bishop  Cum¬ 

mins  had  as  much  right  as  any  other  Bishop,  except  the  Bishop  of  Illinois,  and  he 
did  not  put  in  an  appearance,  but,  according  to  report,  went  to  Peoria  on  a  Visita¬ 
tion . x.  24. 

(23)  Trip  to  Chicago.  Dec.  11  to  16,  1878.  There  was  a  singular  parallelism 
between  the  figurative  and  the  literal  on  this  occasion.  On  the  evening  of  Dec.  1, 
1873,  when  the  xdan  of  the  six  Bishops  to  arrest  the  organization  became  known, 
Bishop  Cummins  said  :  “  We  have  laid  down  our  course  and  shall  not  swerve  from 


120 


CHAPTER  X. 


23d  Section. 

it  one  inch  for  anything  that  man  can  do  against  us,”  implying  a  voluntary  devia¬ 
tion.  On  Dec.  2  we  did  not  swerve  from  our  course  one  inch,  and  organized  as  we 
had  proposed,  and  scarcely  felt  the  resistance  offered  (ii.  Dec.  11,  1873,  Obs.  Editor; 
x.  1  to  16).  On  Dec.  11  we  started  by  the  Erie  Road  for  Chicago  and  kept  the  track 
without  obstruction,  until  at  Narrowsburg  an  empty  cattle  train  obstructed  the 
way.  Our  engine  ploughed  up  the  rear  car,  which  swept  all  the  projecting  pieces 
from  the  engine,  and  sweeping  over  the  heads  of  the  stooping  engineer  and  fire¬ 
man,  broke  into  the  front  of  the  baggage  car,  while  several  of  the  cattle  cars  were 
thrown  in  different  directions,  and  all  without  personal  injury.  We  did  not 
“  swerve  from  our  course  one  inch,”  and  scarcely  felt  the  shock,  and  only  experi¬ 
enced  delay.  We  then  kept  our  track  without  difficulty,  but  looked  down  upon  the  sur¬ 
rounding  country  flooded  by  water,  as  the  P.  E.  C.  by  Romanism,  and  saw  the 
people  in  Cleveland  and  other  places  using  boats  and  rafts  as  temporary  expedients 
to  reach  desired  points  in  the  streets,  because  the  flood  prevented  the  use  of  the 
•“old  paths.” 

On  reaching  Chicago,  the  telegram  of  Bishop  Smith  produced  no  obstruction, 
but  rather  amusement  at  the  new  proof  of  “  I  would  if  I  could.”  (x.  17). 

We  also  heard  that  the  Wliitehouse  party  had  applied  to  the  civil  court  for  an 
immediate  injunction  to  prevent  the  use  of  Dr.  Cheney’s  Church  for  the  purpose  of 
his  consecration  as  a  Bishop  on  Dec.  14.  But  the  Court  demanded  an  argument, 
and  appointed  the  next  week  for  that  purpose.  Thus  again  we  were  not  driven 
from  our  course  by  “  anything  that  man  can  do  against  us,”  and  the  work  under¬ 
taken  was  accomplished.  How  that  work  has  progressed  is  shown  in  Chap¬ 
ter  I. 

(24)  Then  came  a  call  from  Peoria,  160  miles  from  Chicago  (x.  22).  The  Bishop 
and  party  left  by  the  morning  train  and  reached  Peoria  after  darkness  had  set  in. 
Addresses  were  made  to  a  full  congregation  and  pledges  of  support  for  a  R.  E.  C. 
taken  up,  and  the  party  returned  to  Chicago  by  the  night  train,  without  having 
seen  Peoria  by  day-light.  A  full  report  was  given  in  the  Peoria  Transcript  of  Dec. 
17,  1873.  Addresses  were  made  by  two  Bishops  and  two  laymen.  How  this 
has  progressed,  see  •'*  Peoria,”  i.  Dec.  17, 1873  :  Feb.  18, 1874  ;  March  18  ;  July  29, 1874* 


CHAPTER  XI. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  R.  E.  C. 


Contents: — (1).  The  R.  E.  C.  is  mainly  a  separate  organization  of  the 
Old  Evangelicals  of  the  P.  E.C. — (2.)  Declaration  of  Principles  of  the  li.  E. 
C.  in  1873. — (3, 4.)  Changes  in  Common  Prayer  Booh  in  1874. — (5  to  7.)  Phil¬ 
adelphia  Declaration  in  1867. — (8).  Revision  of  the  Prayer  Booh  in  1867. — 
(9  to  12.)  Proceedings  of  Old  Evangelicals  and  union  with  Presbyterians  in 
1867. — (13).  Separation  threatening  in  1868. — (14).  Chicago  Protest  and  Call 
in  1869. — (15).  Chicago  Conference  in  1869. — (16  to  20).  Sympathy  for  Rev. 
Chas.  E.  Cheney  on  his  suspension  {May  13,  1871). — (21,  22).  Changes. — 
(23.)  The  three  Evangelical  Societies  in  1874. — (24).  Old  Evangelicals  ;  where 
found  before  the  inauguration  of  the  R.  E.  C. — (25).  Old  Evangelical  Clergy¬ 
men  of  the  P.  E.  C.  notv  in  the  R.  E.  C. — (26).  List  of  Clergy  of  the  R.  E. 
C. — (27).  Call  and  Declaration  of  the  R.  E.  C.  compared. — (28.)  Prepara¬ 
tions  to  organize. — (29).  Declaration  irrevocable. — (30  to  35).  Action  of  Com¬ 
mittees  and  General  Council. — (36).  Revision  very  conservative. — (37).  Free 
Church  of  England. — (38  to  41).  Secular  Press  state  facts ,  but  criticise. — 
(42).  Some  others  give  false  and  distorted  statements. — (43).  Episcopacy. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  The  R.  E.  C.  is  a  separate  organization  of  the  “Old  Evangelicals  who 
carried  the  Evangelical  banner  so  nobly  ”  in  the  P.  E.  C.  (iii.  Oct.  31),  with  the 
addition  of  those  of  other  denominations  who  entertain  the  same  views,  but  did 
not  form  a  part  of  the  Evangelical  schism  when  “  fighting  ”  against  the  Romish 
schism  in  the  same  Church.  This  is  proved  by  comparing  the  Call  to  organize 
(ix.)  and  the  Declaration  of  Principles  (xi.  2),  and  the  revised  Prayer  Book  (xi.  3,  4, 
27  to  36),  with  the  action  of  the  Evangelicals  as  related  in  this  chapter  (xi.  5  to  26), 
and  with  the  reasons  given  for  leaving  the  P.  E.  C.  recorded  as  *£  Low  Church  ”  in 
Chapter  III,  and  other  expressions  of  Low  Church  opinions  in  Chapter  III.  (xii.58). 
This  cannot  be  proved  by  direct  reference  to  written  documents.  The  funda¬ 
mental  Declaration  of  Principles  of  the  ft.  E.  C.  is  a  written  document  analogous 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  U.  S.  A.  But  the  principles  of  the  P.  E.  C.  and  of  Ch. 
Eng.  are  analogous  to  the  Constitution  of  Great  Britain,  and  to  the  common  law  of 
that  country,  and  of  the  U.  S.  A.,  not  written  out  systematically,  but  depending 
upon  legal  decisions  {i.  e.,  Judicial  Legislation)  and  upon  precedents.  We  have 
documentary  evidence  to  prove  that  the  fundamental  doctrines  which  legally  bind 
the  P.  E.  C.  are  the  same  as  the  doctrines  of  Ch.  Eng.  at  the  time  of  the  separation 
(xii.  25,  26).  We  have  documentary  evidence  to  prove  that  the  term  “Protestant” 
in  the  “  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established,”  signified  nothing 
more  than  “a  protest”  against  the  political  supremacy  of  the  Pope  (xii.  12  to  24). 

(121) 


122 


CHAPTER  XI. 


1st  Section. 

Consequently  that  is  all  that  the  same  term  signifies  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  Episcopal 
Protestants  may  legally  hold  every  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Romey  excepting  the 
political  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  and  the  Old  Catholics  are  thoroughly  “  Protest¬ 
ant  ”  in  the  Anglican  sense  of  that  word.  Non- Episcopal  Churches  apply  to  doctrine 
the  term  Protestant,  and  in  that  sense  the  Old  Evangelicals  were  the  Protestants  in 
the  Pan-Anglican  Church.  To  prevent  this  confusion  in  terms,  those  who  are  far 
enough  advanced  to  desire  the  utmost  limit  allowed  by  law,  call  themselves  “  Anglo- 
Catholics”;  and  to  prevent  the  same  confusion  in  terms,  those  Episcopalians  who 
are  Protestants  in  the  Non -Episcopal  sense  are  here  called  “  Old  Evangelicals.” 
Each  has  legally  the  same  right  in  the  Pan- Anglican  Church.  The  Anglo-Catho- 
lics  have  control.  A  portion  of  the  Old  Evangelicals  have  quietly  retired  to  form  a 
new  organization,  and  have  thus  abandoned  all  their  legal  rights  to  the  Church 
property  which  belonged  in  common  to  the  Anglo-Catholic3  and  the  Old 
Evangelicals.  This  is  my  present  opinion  drawn  from  the  analysis  in  this  work. 
Several  years  ago,  I  maintained  in  print  that  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  had  mis¬ 
applied  old  trust  funds.  In  consequence  of  the  changes  in  that  parish,  I  have  not 
been  in  Trinity  as  a  church  for  many  years,  although  I  never  sold  the  pew  occupied 
by  me  from  my  childhood,  and  for  which  I  paid  $400  (xvi.  1).  I  did  more  work 
and  spent  more  money  than  any  other  individual  for  St.  John’s  Church  in  Passaic, 
and  I  have  not  entered  that  church  since  Oct.  80,  1873.  Neither  of  these  churches 
would  have  had  their  present  property  had  their  present  status  been  expected,  and 
these  are  only  examples  of  a  general  rule  (xii.49-52).  Consequently  (ii.  Dec.  16, 1874, 
B.  A.),  I  used  this  expression  :  “  This  signifies  that  the  Low  Church  clergy  and 
laity  may  be  driven  out  of  the  P.  E.  C.  by  High  Church  excesses  and  robbed  of 
their  Church  property,  and  then  abused  for  leaving.’’  I  now  think  that  the  Anglo- 
Catholics  can  legally  hold  all  the  property  as  long  as  they  do  not  acknowledge  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope,  and  therefore  there  has  been  no  “  robbery.”  But  in  Ge¬ 
neva,  Switzerland,  Father  Hyacinthe  refused  to  use  the  cathedral,  saying  that 
although  it  was  theirs  according  to  law,  it  belonged  by  right  to  the  Ultramontanes, 
who  had  built  it  (i.  Nov.  18,  1874,  St.  John’s;  iii.  March  25,  1874,  Parties;  April  8, 
Parties;  June  11,  Comprom.;  July  9,  St.  Alb. ;  Aug.  19,  Cheney ;  Oct.  19,  Catli.; 
Oct.  26,  De  Koven;  Nov.  11,  Ch.  Eng.  ;  Nov.  25,  Sacer.  ;  Feb.  17,  1875,  Ch.  Eng. ; 
Feb.  27,  De  Koven  and  Bp.  Albany  ;  March  10,  Ch.  Eng, ;  March  17,  do. ;  xii.  12 
to  59. 

(2)  Declaration  of  Principles  of  theR.  E.  C.,  adopted  as  the  Irrevocable  basis 
of  Organization  on  Dec.  2,  1878  : 

“  I.  The  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  holding  ‘  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,’  declares  its  belief  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
as  the  .Word  of  God,  and  the  sole  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice  ;  in  the  Creed,  com¬ 
monly  called  the  Apostles’  Creed  ;’  in  the  Divine  institution  of  the  Sacraments  of 
Baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  ;  and  in  the  doctrines  of  grace  substantially  as  they 
are  set  forth  in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Religion. 

“  II.  This  Church  recognizes  and  adheres  to  Episcopacy,  not  as  of  Divine  right, 
but  as  a  very  ancient  and  desirable  form  of  Church  polity. 

“  III.  This  Church,  retaining  a  Liturgy  which  shall  not  be  imperative  or 
repressive  of  freedom  in  prayer,  accepts  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  it  was 
revised,  proposed,  and  recommended  for  use  by  the  General  Convention  of  the  Prot- 


CHAPTER  XI. 


123 


2d  Section. 

estant  Episcopal  Church,  A.  D.  1785,  reserving  full  liberty  to  alter,  abridge,  en- 
•  large,  and  amend  the  same,  as  may  seem  most  conducive  to  the  edification  of  the 
people,  ‘  provided  that  the  substance  of  the  faith  be  kept  entire.’ 

“  IV.  This  Church  condemns  and  rejects  the  following  erroneous  and  strange 
doctrines  as  contrary  to  God’s  Word  : 

“  First.  That  the  Church  of  Christ  exists  only  in  one  order  or  form  of  ecclesias¬ 
tical  polity. 

“  Second.  That  Christian  ministers  are  ‘  priests  ’  in  another  sense  than  that  in 
which  all  believers  are  a  ‘  royal  priesthood.’ 

“  Third.  That  the  Lord’s  Table  is  an  altar  on  which  an  oblation  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  is  offered  anew  to  the  Father. 

“  Fourth.  That  the  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord’s  Supper  is  a  presence  in  the 
elements  of  bread  and  wine. 

“Fifth.  That  Regeneration  is  inseparably  connected  with  Baptism.” 

xi.  27,  29;  xvi.  1  to  29;  xx.  1. 

COMMON  PRAYER  BOOK  OF  THE  R.  E.  C. 

(3)  “  The  comparison  of  Prayer  Books,  by  a  Presbyter  of  the  R.  E.  C.”  (Rev. 
Marshall  B.  Smith),  in  a  pamphlet  of  48  pages,  gives  all  the  details  of  differences 
between  the  service  books  of  the  P.  E.  C.  and  the  R.  E.  C. 

(4)  But  for  present  purposes  take  the  general  statement  of  the  “Position  of  theR. 
E.  C.,  by  Herbert  B.  Turner,”  extracted  from  the  pamphlet  of  9  pages,  viz.  : — “  Let 
us  now  examine  the  Liturgy  by  which  these  principles  are  set  forth  and  inculcated, 
and  the  changes  which  have  been  made  in  the  Book  of  Common  Praver. 

“  Adopting  the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  as  a  basis,  the 
new  Church  has  made  the  following  changes  : — The  word  ‘  priest,’  wherever  it  oc¬ 
curs  in  the  Rubrics,  has  been  changed  to  ‘minister.’ — After  the  opening  sentences, 
special  texts  have  been  introduced  for  use  on  Christmas,  Easter,  Good  Friday,  and 
other  days. — The  ‘Absolution,’  as  it  is  termed  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  book,  is 
changed  into  a  prayer.  The  assertion  that  ‘  God  hath  given  power  and  commandment 
to  His  ministers  to  declare  and  pronounce  to  His  people,  being  penitent,  the  absolution 
and  remission  of  their  sins,’  is  omitted,  because  it  is  not  believed  to  be  true. — The 
Canticle,  ‘  0,  all  ye  works  of  the  Lord,’  from  the  Apocrypha,  being  rarely  used,  and 
of  doubtful  expediency,  is  omitted. — The  words,  ‘He  descended  into  hell,’  which 
were  inserted  in  the  Apostles’  Creed  in  the  seventh  century,  are  omitted  from  the 
text,  permission  being  given  to  the  minister  to  use  them  at  his  option. — The 
Nicene  Creed  remains  unchanged,  but  its  latter  clauses,  so  constantly  a  burden  to 
tender  consciences  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  by  reason  of  the  use  made 
of  them  by  Ritualists  and  Romanists,  are  explained  by  the  following  note :  ‘  By 
one  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  is  signified  The  blessed  company  of  all  faithful 
people ,  and  by  One  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost: 
— A  slight  verbal  change  is  made  in  the  prayer  for  all  in  civil  authority. — The 
Litany  remains  unchanged  except  by  the  insertion  of  one  more  petition  :  ‘  That  it 
may  please  Thee  to  send  forth  laborers  into  Thy  harvest.’ — It  will  be  seen  that  the 
structure  of  the  Morning  Service  remains  unchanged,  and  the  alterations  in  it  are 
slight.” 

“The  Evening  Service  is  modified  in  the  same  particulars,  while  an  additional  sej* 


124: 


CHAPTER  XI. 


4th.  Section. 

vice,  compiled  from  different  portions  of  the  Prayer-Book,  is  added,  for  those  who 
prefer  more  variety  of  form. — Coming  now  to  the  Communion  Office,  we  find  that 
the  language  of  the  Commandments  is  that  of  the  King  James’  version,  and  indeed 
the  same  is  true  of  almost  all  texts  used  in  the  services.  An  invitation  to  the  com¬ 
munion  is  inserted,  and  its  use,  in  the  following  language,  made  obligatory  :  ‘  Our 
fellow-Christians  of  other  branches  of  Christ’s  Church,  and  all  who  love  our  Divine 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity,  are  affectionately  invited  to  the  Lord’s 
Table.’ — In  the  exhortation  to  those  about  to  communicate,  the  words  ‘  So  is  the 
danger  great  if  we  receive  the  same  unwrortliily,’  are  omitted.  All  allusions  to 
‘  Holy  Mysteries,’  eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood,’  etc.,  are  also  erased. 
— The  minister  is  directed  to  say  to  all  the  communicants  around  the  table,  ‘  The 
body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  wrhich  was  given  for  you,  preserve  your  bodies  and 
souls  unto  everlasting  life,’  and  then  when  delivering  the  bread  to  each,  ‘  Take 
and  eat  this  bread  in  remembrance  that  Christ  died  for  thee,  and  feed  on  Him  in 
thy  heart,  by  faith,  with  thanksgiving.’  A  like  change  is  made  in  delivering  the 
cup. — The  order  of  the  Church  of  England  Prayer-Book,  by  which  a  large  portion 
of  the  prayer  is  used  after  the  elements  are  distributed,  is  restored. — The  Com¬ 
munion  Office,  as  now  presented,  is  a  work  of  great  time  and  care,  and  of  earnest, 
prayerful  thought.  It  is  believed  to  be  completely  in  accordance  with  the  viewrs  of 
the  sacrament  as  entertained  by  all  Evangelical  Christians. — The  same  great  prin¬ 
ciples  have  governed  the  revision  of  the  Baptismal  Office.  Children  are  to  be  pre¬ 
sented  by  their  parents  wffien  practicable,  and  one  at  least  of  the  persons  presenting 
them  must  be  a  communicant  of  some  Evangelical  church. — There  is  nothing  in 
this  service  which  can  be  construed  into  a  consecration  of  the  wrater,  no  prayer  that 
it  be  sanctified  ‘  to  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin.’ — In  the  exhortation,  after 
the  reading  of  a  portion  of  the  tenth  chapter  of  St.  Mark,  appears  the  following 
passage :  ‘  Doubt  ye  not  therefore,  but  earnestly  believe,  that  He  who  now  sitteth 
on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high  is  the  same  tender  Saviour,  who,  in  the 
days  of  His  sojourning  upon  earth,  so  lovingly  regarded  little  children.  Where¬ 
fore,  being  thus  persuaded,  of  the  good-will  of  our  Saviour  towards  all  infants,  and 
not  doubting  that  He  favorably  allowetli  the  dedication  of  this  infant  unto  Him, 
let  us  faithfully  and  devoutly  call  upon  Him  in  its  behalf,  and  say,’  etc.,  etc. — The 
words,  ‘  Seeing,  dearly  beloved,  that  this  child  is  regenerate,’  etc.,  are  omitted,  and 
a  short  prayer  substituted. — Some  alterations  are  made  in  the  order  of  confirmation, 
and  a  note  is  added,  that  members  of  other  churches,  uniting  wTith  this  Church, 
need  not  be  confirmed,  except  at  their  own  request. — The  form  for  the  solemniza¬ 
tion  of  matrimony  is  but  little  changed.  The  parties  are  pronounced  husband  and 
wife,  and  the  allusion  to  Isaac  and  Rebekah  is  omitted,  in  deference  to  the  wishes 
of  many  who  fail  to  see  the  propriety  of  inculcating  on  a  newly-married  pair  the 
example  of  Orientals,  of  wdiom  we  know  little  except  a  gross  and  cruel  deception 
practiced  by  a  wife  on  her  aged  husband. — In  the  Burial  Service  special  provision  is 
made  for  the  case  of  a  child,  and  an  alternative  lesson  is  introduced  from  the  story 
of  Lazarus. — The  sentence,  *  Looking  for  the  general  resurrection  in  the  last  day, 
and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,’  being  sometimes 
inappropriate,  is  changed  to  read  as  follows:  ‘Awaiting  the  general  resurrection  in 
the  last  day,  and  the  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.’ — A  new  form  is  intro¬ 
duced  for  the  public  reception  of  presbyters  from  other  ecclesiastical  bodies,  and  in 


CHAPTER  XI. 


125 


4th  Section. 

the  consecration  of  bishops  and  ordaining  of  presbyters  the  words,  ‘  Receive  the  Holy 
Ghost,’  and  ‘  Whosesoever  sins  thou  dost  remit,’  etc.,  do  not  appear. — No  provision 
is  made  for  the  celebration  of  Saints’  Days. — Such,  then,  are  the  principal  changes 
by  which  it  is  sought  to  eliminate  from  the  Prayer  Book  the  germs  of  Romish 
error  which  the  compromises  of  the  Elizabethan  age  have  transmitted  to  us. — The 
new  Church  claims  to  have  set  forth  a  thoroughly  Protestant  Liturgy.  ”(xii.  12  to  24.) 

(5)  Philadelphia  Declaration,  adopted  Nov.  5,  1SG7.  The  Protestant  Church¬ 
man  of  Dec.  12,  1867,  has  the  following  :  “  Declaration  of  certain  clergy  and  laity 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The  subscribers  to  the  following  declaration, 
deeply  moved  by  what  they  believe  to  be  the  present  dangers  of  our  beloved 
Church,  in  tbe  open  and  secret  tendencies  which  exist  in  it  to  conformity  with  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  humbly  trusting  in  the  guidance  and  blessing  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  would  make  this  statemeftt  of  their  views  and  feelings  for  the  purpose  of 
mutual  encouragement  and  support.  The  essential  spirit  of  these  tendencies  is  an 
entire  subversion  of  the  Protestant  and  Evangelical  character  of  our  Reformed 
Church.  It  transforms  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  into  a  priesthood,  Baptism  into 
a  magical  rite,  the  Lord’s  Supper  into  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  Evangelical  liberty 
into  bondage  to  manifold  observances  and  ceremonies,  and  the  One  Church  of 
Christ,  ‘  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people,’  into  the  body  of  those  who  rec¬ 
ognize  and  conform  to  a  mere  sacerdotal  system.  These  tendencies,  already  far  ad¬ 
vanced  in  England  and  this  country,  are  materially  aided  by  a  subtler  and  less  clearly 
pronounced  sacerdotalism,  which  finds  expression  amongst  us  in  the  exclusive  view 
of  tbe  Episcopal  Church,  in  unscript.ural  conceptions  of  the  sacraments,  in  super¬ 
stitious  ideas  of  the  power  of  the  ministry,  and  in  a  legal  rather  than  evangelical 
view  of  the  Christian  life.  Tbe  influence  of  these  tendencies  we  believe  to  be 
eminently  injurious  to  our  Church  by  the  reasonable  prejudice  which  they  excite  ; 
fatal  to  the  performance  of  the  great  mission  of  our  Church  in  this  land,  by  their 
contrariety  to  true  liberty  and  true  progress  of  the  age,  dangerous  to  souls  by  their 
hiding  of  the  free  grace  of  the  Gospel,  and  dishonorable  to  Christ  by  their  substitution 
of  human  mediatorship  in  the  place  of  the  ‘one  Mediator,  Jesus  Christ.’  Under  a 
deep  sense  of  our  responsibility,  we  ask  ourselves  what,  in  this  crisis,  it  is  our  duty 
to  do  ?  In  the  first  place,  we  feel  compelled  to  affirm,  that  in  many  of  the  pulpits 
of  our  Church,  another  Gospel  is  preached  which  is  not  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  The 
•  Church  needs  to  be  awakened  to  its  peril.  A  paramount  duty  is  imposed  upon  our 
clergy  and  our  missionary  organizations  to  see  that,  so  far  as  they  are  able,  the 
pure  Word  of  God  shall  be  preached  everywhere  in  our  land.  We  cannot  yield 
this  liberty  to  any  claim  of  territorial  jurisdiction,  and  we  hereby  express  our 
sympathy  with  the  resistance  which  is  made  in  this  respect  to  the  attempted  en¬ 
forcement  of  false  constructions  of  Canonical  law.  We  believe  also  that  the  pres¬ 
ent  crisis  of  Protestanism  demands  a  higher  degree  of  sympathy  and  co-opera¬ 
tion  among  the  various  evangelical  bodies  into  which  we  are  divided.  An  exclusive 
position  in  this  respect  we  hold  to  be  injurious  to  our  own  Church,  and  inconsis¬ 
tent  with  our  history  and  standards,  as  well  as  with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  In 
the  case  of  those  ‘  chosen  and  called  ’  to  the  work  of  the  ministry  by  those  ‘  who 
have  public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the  congregation,’  and  manifestly  blessed 
in  their  labors  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  believe  that  we  cannot  withhold  our  recogni¬ 
tion  of  the  validity  of  their  ministry,  without  imperiling  the  interest  of  evangeli- 


126 


CHAPTER  XI. 


5th  Section. 

cal  religion,  ‘  despising  tlie  brethren  ’  and  doing  ‘  despite  unto  the  spirit  of  grace.’ 
In  this  matter  also  we  express  our  earnest  sympathy  with  the  resistance  which  is 
made  to  those  false  interpretations  of  Canonical  law,  by  which  this  recognition  and 
fellowship  would  be  restrained.  This  statement  of  our  views  is  made  under  a  full 
sense  of  any  responsibility  which  it  may  involve.  The  love  and  devotion  which  we 
bear  to  our  Church,  and  the  allegiance  which  we  owe  to  Christ,  will  not  allow  us  to 
hesitate.  With  kindness  and  charity  for  all  who  differ  from  us,  imposing  no  burden 
on  the  consciences  of  others,  as  we  are  unwilling  to  submit  to  any  imposed  upon  our 
own,  we  claim  only  that  in  the  Church  of  our  dearest  affection,  it  is  our  inalienable 
privilege  to  be  true  in  these  repects  to  our  sense  of  duty  to  God . (xii.  40  to  42.) 

(6)  This  is  signed  by  the  following  clergymen,  omitting  the  laymen,  viz. :  Richard 
Newton,  D.D.,  John  Cotton  Smith,  D.D.,  John  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  S.  H.  Tyng,  D.D.,  C. 
M.  Butler,  D.D.,  L.  W.  Bancroft,  D.D.,  H.  Dyer,  DJD.,  E.  H.  Cutler,  D.D.,  Samuel 
Cutler,  Charles  W.  Quick,  Marshall  B.  Smith,  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  Jr. 

(7)  Continued,  Jan.  23,  1868,  omitting  laymen :  viz.,  W.  A.  Newbold,  Samuel 
Clements,  Geo.  Bringhurst,  Edward  Meyers,  J.  W.  Bonham,  J.  E.  Homans,  J.  II.  C. 
Bonte,  Edward  Anthon,  S.  II.  Boyer,  J.  H.  Jenks,  Jr.,  W.  Dymond,  W.  H.  Neilson, 
J.  H.  Kedzie,  G.  E.  Thrall,  H.  H.  Morrell,  G.  L.  Platt,  W.  M.  Postlethwaite, 

G.  W.  Ridgely,  J.  P.  Hubbard,  A.  M.  Morrison,  R.  Heber  Newton,  J.  G.  Ames,  D. 
II.  Greer,  Francis  E.  Arnold,  C.  E.  Cheney,  J.  A.  Jerome,  J.  F.  Blake  (now  J.  B. 
Faulkner),  H.  L.  Badger,  W.  Hyde,  W.  C.  French,  S.  J.  French,  Abbott  Brown,  Cli. 

H.  Tucker,  J.  A.  Aspinwall,  J.  N.  Stanger,  PI.  D.  Ward,  J.  Morsell,  D.D.,  L.  C. 
Newman,  Cli.  Higbee,  N.  L.  Briggs,  R.  L.  Chittenden,  H.  M.  Stuart,  J.  Eastburn 
Brown,  Geo.  Howell,  R.  J.  Parvin,  Jas.  Pratt,  D.D.,  R.  C.  Matlack,  D.D.  Smith,  S. 
Cowell,  J.  L.  Maxwell,  Geo.  B.  Alien,  A.  M.  Wiley,  AY.  N.  McVicar,  T.  A.  Jaggar, 
L.  Luquer,  G.  F.  Bugbee,  S.  B.  Simes,  W.  T.  Sabine,  A.  Shiras,  T.  Burrows,  E. 
Anthon,  B.  B.  Leacock,  F.  S.  Rising,  J.  Cromlish,  M.  Gallagher,  E.  B.  Benjamin, 
C.  W.  Quirk,  B.  McGann,  S.  R.  AYeldon,  W,  G.  Hawkins,  D.  R.  Brewer,  T.  F.  Caskey, 
J  Rambo,  G.  Z.  Gray,  G.  Slatterly,  IP.  R.  Smith,  W.  B.  Bodine,  W.  S.  Langford^ 
W.  W.  Farr.  Then  the  note,  “  A  further  list  will  be  furnished  hereafter.”  But 
none  such  has  been  found.  The  Rev.  J.  Howard  Smith,  once  Editor  of  the  Protest¬ 
ant  Churchman,  was  doubtless  one  of  the  signers.  We  find  additional  names  in  the 
following  proposed 

(8)  Revision  of  tlie  Prayer  Book,  Nov.  8,  1867,  reported  in  the  Protestant 
Churchman  of  Nov.  14,  1867:  Editors — Rev.  N.  H.  Sclienck,  D.D.,  Rev.  John  Cotton 
Smith,  D.D.,  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  :  viz.,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Societies  of 
the  P.  E.  C.  in  Philadelphia,  Nov.  8,  1867  :  Whereas,  There  are  many  among  us 
who  have  serious  conscientious  difficulties  in  regard  to  certain  expressions  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  especially  in  the  Baptismal  Office;  and,  Whereas,  there  is 
reason  to  suppose  that  many  are  deterred  by  these  difficulties  from  entering  our 
communion  and  ministry;  in  view  of  these  and  other  considerations,  therefore, 

Pesolved,  That  a  Committee,  consisting  of  - ,  be  appointed,  and  is  hereby 

appointed,  to  consider  and  report  upon  the  whole  subject  of  the  Revision  of  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer.  On  motion,  the  blank  was  filled  with  ten,  and  the  fol¬ 
lowing  were  chosen  by  resolution  as  the  Committee:  Rev.  F.  M.  AArhittle,  D.D., 
Rev.  A.  H.  Vinton,  D.D.,  Rev.  John  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  Rev.  C.  AY.  Andrews,  D.D.,  Rev. 
Richard  Newton,  D.D.,  Rev.  Clement  M.  Butler,  D.D.,  Rev.  Samuel  Cutler, 


CHAPTER  XI. 


127 


8th  Section. 

Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  Rev.  L.  W.  Bancroft,  D.D.,  Rev.  John  Cotton 
Smith,  D.D.” 

(9)  Also,  the  following  names  of  the  Old  Evangelicals  who  took  part  in  the 
above  proceedings,  and  on  Nov.  8,  18G7,  as  reported  in  the  Protestant  Churchman , 
of  Nov.  14,  1867.  The  meeting  was  held  in  the  Church  of  the  Epiphany,  Rev.  Dr. 
Newton  presiding.  Addresses  were  made  by  Bishop  Eastburn,  Rev.  T.  F.  Fales, 
Rev.  Asa  Dalton.  Then  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  President  of  the  E.  K.  S.  in  the  chair. 
Secretary,  Rev.  Dr.  Dyer ;  sermon  by  Rev.  Dr.  Cook,  Declaration  (si.  5)  presented 
by  Rev.  Dr.  John  S.  Stone.  Addresses  on  Missions  by  Rev.  Messrs.  Edward  An- 
thon,  H.  H.  Morrell,  Sec.  Bd.  For.  Miss. 

(10)  “  At  this  meeting,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton,.  . .  .prayer 

was  offered  for. . .  .the  National  Convention  of  Presbyterian  Churches  in  America, 
then  assembled.” . sv.  1  to  12. 

(11)  At  the  Communion,  Bishops  Mcllvaine,  Lee,  Eastburn,  Johns,  and  Stevens, 
Dr.  Stone.  Addresses  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine  and  by  Bishop  Johns. ..  .Meeting  of 
Am.  Cli.  Mis.  Soc.,  Jay  Cooke,  president.  Rev.  Edward  Anthon,  Sec. . .  .Hon.  John 
N.  Conyngliam  elected  president.  Bishop  Eastburn,  offered  a  resolution.  Ad¬ 
dresses  by  Rev.  C.  E.  Cheney,  Rev.  A.  M.  Wylie,  Bishop  Eastburn,  Rev.  Dr.  New¬ 
ton,  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Cotton  Smith.  Benediction  by  Bp.  Mcllvaine.  For  increase  of  the 
ministry,  prayer  by  Rev.  Dr.  L.  W.  Bancroft.  Address  by  Rev.  Dr.  M.  Meier 
Smith.  Benediction  by  Rev.  T.  F.  Fales.  Meeting  of  E.  E.  S.,  Jay  Cooke,  Presi¬ 
dent;  Sec.  Rev.  Rob.  J.  Parvin.  Addresses  by  Rev.  S.  A.  Clark,  Bp.  Eastburn,  Rev. 
Drs.  Howe  and  Claxton,  Rev.  Mr.  Lounsbury. 

(12)  “  During  the  meeting  a  delegation  was  announced. . .  .from  the  Presbyterian 

National  Convention,  consisting  of  Rev.  Messrs.  H.  B.  Smith,  D.D.,  J.  M.  Stevenson, 
D.D.,  and  Elders  Drake  and  Carter. ..  .to  convey. ..  .salutation.”  (xv.  1  to  12.) 
Education  Society,  Rev.  J.  Parvin  read  report.  Addresses  by  Rev.  Dr.  Nicholson,  Bp. 
Stevens,  Rev.  Phillips  Brooks.  Dismissed  by  Bishop  Lee.  Collation,  Dr.  Newton 
in  the  chair.  Addresses  by  Hon.  N.  Conyngliam,  Rev.  Messrs.  Dr.  J.  E.  Grammar, 
S.  Clements,  Dr.  H.  N.  Bishop,  S.  A.  Clark.  Benediction  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine.  On 
Friday  morning  the  Declaration  (xi.  5)  was  adopted  omitting  the  Prayer  Book  (xi.  8.) 
and  signed  by  a  large  number,  Rev.  Prof.  Bancroft  in  the  chair.  Then  adjourned 
to  visit  the  Presbyterian  delegates  (xv.  1  to  12).  Then  returned,  and  Stewart 
Brown  in  the  chair.  Declaration  again  approved.  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  Jr. . .  .resolu¬ 
tion  of  thanks  to  “  the  Episcopalian  and  Protestant  Churchman  for  the  fearless  de¬ 
fense _ of  the  principles  in  this  Declaration.”  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher,  resolution 

of  thanks  to  the  Bishop  of  Iowa,  “  for  the  bold,  timely,  and  just  testimony.... 
against  the  fearful  inroads  of  error  and  apostasy  in  our  mother  Church  in 
England.” 

(13)  Separation  in  1868.  The  Southern  Churchman  of  Nov.  19,  1868,  in  its 
leader  says:  “  Does  any  one  wish  to  see  brethren  and  friends. . .  .forced. . .  .either 
to  forsake  the  Church  of  their  love,  or  else  set  up  another  organization?.  . .  .The 
Church  of  England  could  have  prevented  both  the  Puritan  and  Methodist  schisms 
if  she  had  chosen.  Shall  we  not  learn  wisdom  ?  Can  it  be  that  all  history  is  writ¬ 
ten  for  us  in  vain  ?  We  are  conservative. . .  .The  Prayer  Book  suits  us. . .  .But  if 
there  be  brethren  who  cannot  see  as  we  do,  should  their  conscientious  scruples  be 
utterly  ignored,  and  they  told,  if  the  Church  does  not  suit  them,  they  can  leave  it  ? 


128 


CHAPTER  XI. 


13th  Section. 

This  was  told  the  Puritans  and  they  left.  This  was  told  the  Methodists  and  .they 
left.” . iii.  Oct.  31  ;  Beach. 

(14)  Chicago  Protest  of  Feb.  18,  1869  :  “  Be  it  known  to  all  men  that  we  the 
undersigned,  Presbyters  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  moved  as  we  humbly  trust,  by  a  becoming  sense  of  duty  to  God,  to  the 
Church  whose  ministers  we  are,  and  to  our  own  souls,  and  solemnly  remembering 
the  vowc  we  took  in  Ordination  to  ‘  be  ready  with  all  faithful  diligence  to  banish 
and  drive  away  from,  the  Church  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines  contrary  to 
God’s  word,  and  to  use  both  public  and  private  monitions,  as  need  shall  require, 
and  occasions  shall  be  given,’  We,  the  Presbyters  aforesaid,  satisfied  by  evidence, 
to  us  incontestible,  that  Great  Peril  now  exists  to  the  purity  of  the  faith  arid  wor¬ 
ship ,  not  only  of  the  Mother  Church  of  England,  from  which  some  of  us  derive  our 
Orders,  but  also  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  that  a  scheme  exists  to 
undermine  the  Scriptural  foundation  of  these  Churches,  on  the  specious  plea  of  a 
‘revived  Catholicity,’  do  now  and  hereby  in  this  formal  instrument  enter  our 
solemn  Protest  against  all  teachings,  innovations,  machinations,  and  devices  that 
are  employed  for  unprotestantizing  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  corrupting  her 
doctrine,  debasing  her  worship,  and  overturning  her  long-established  rites,  ceremo¬ 
nies,  and  usages.  And  the  undersigned  Presbyters,  together  with  the  laymen 
whose  names  are  hereunto  appended,  as  assenting  and  confirming,  do  furthermore 
solemnly  Protest  against  the  doctrines  and  teachings  of  the  following  passages, 
extracted  from  the  printed  and  published  writings  of  their  respective  authors — men 
prominent  by  position  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  :  ‘  In  the  Regeneration 

by  holy  Baptism ,  in  the  spiritual  and  ineffable  presence  of  our  Lord  in  the  Euchar¬ 
ist,  with  the  Mystical  Nutriment  through  His  Body  and  Blood,  as  well  as  in  the  defi¬ 
nition  of  the  Sacraments,  generally  there  is  Virtual  Concurrence  in  the 
accepted  standards  of  the  historical  Churches,  Eastern,  Western,  ’  ‘  (or  Roman),’ 
‘  and  Anglican.’  ‘  In  addition  to  this  substantial  agreement  in  Orders,  Creeds,  and 
Sacraments,  the  rite  of  Confirmation,’  etc.  [The  Convention  address  of  Bishop 
Whiteliouse,  1868,  page  29].  4  Besides  the  two  Sacraments  of  the  highest  order, 

there  are  other  inferior  rites  having  the  same  nature ,  but  not  necessarily  in  the  same 
way  ;  among  these  are  Confirmation,  Matrimony,  and  Holy  Orders,  in  all  of  which 
they  are  an  outward  sign  and  an  inward  grace  ’ :  ‘1st,  The  sign,  called  Sacrament- 

um,  bread  and  wine,  simple  elements  of  daily  sustenance.  These  remain  in  their 
proper  substance  after  consecration,  retaining  their  proper  nature,  and  yet  they 
undergo  .a  Mystical  Change,  whereby  they  become  the  forms  under  which  Christ  is 
present .’  2d,  The  thing  signified,  called  Res.,  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ :  His 
glorified  humanity,  which  after  a  manner  inexplicable  and  without  a  parallel  in 
the  range  of  our  knowledge,  becomes  present  after  consecration,  not  bodily  or  physi¬ 
cally,  according  to  the  laws  of  material  or  carnal  bodies,  but  supra-locally,  liyper- 
pliysically,  and  spiritually  in  some  way  believed  in  by  the  Church,  but  known  only 
to  God  ’  [‘  Manual  of  Instruction  for  Confirmation  Classes,’  by  Rev.  I)r.  Dix,  pages 

41  and  53]. - ‘  Question :  How  do  we  become  partakers  of  the  nature  of  the 

second  Adam  ?  Answer :  By  our  New  Birth  in  Holy  Baptism.  Quest. :  What  then 
begins  the  Christian  life  ?  Ans.,  Holy  Baptism.  Quest.  :  What  is  the  second  great 
step  in  the  Christian  life?  Ans.,  Confirmation.  Quest.:  What  is  the  third? 
Ans.,  The  Holy  Communion.  Quest. :  What  is  the  fourth?  Ans.,  Death.  Quest. 


CHAPTER  XL 


129 


14th  Section. 

What  two  titles  lias  the  Church  given  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary?  Ans., 
She  is  called  the  Bringer  forth  of  God,  and  the  Ever  Virgin  Mary.  Quest. :  How 
do  you  receive  forgiveness  for  sin  after  Baptism  ?  Ans.,  By  Absolution  and  the 
Holy  Communion.  Quest. :  Into  how  many  divisions  is  Everlasting  Life  divided  ? 
Ans.,  Into  that  which  is  begun  here  on  earth  in  the  Church,  and  through  the 
Sacrament,  etc.  [Rev.  Dr.  De  Koven’s  ‘  Catechism  on  Confirmation,’  pages 
72  and  82].” 

“  We  solemnly  declare  that,  in  our  judgment,  the  preceding  extracts  are  not  in 
harmony  with  the  doctrines  and  principles  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  but 
directly  the  reverse,  in  many  particulars,  of  the  teaching  of  the  Articles,  Liturgy, 
and  Homilies — the  very  reverse  of  the  principles  in  defense  of  which  many  of  the 
Bishops  and  other  dignitaries  of  our  Mother  Church  endured  the  fires  of  martyr¬ 
dom.  And  we  furthermore  declare  it  our  fixed  purpose  and  intention  under  God, 
to  do  what  in  us  lies  towards  the  freeing  of  this,  our  beloved  Church,  from  the 
domination  and  perpetuation  of  such  sentiments  and  doctrines.  And  for  the 
integrity  of  our  present  action,  we  appeal  to  the  Great  Searcher  of  Hearts,  and  for 
our  vindication,  to  the  candid  judgment  of  all  honest,  thinking  Christian  men,  and 
more  especially  to  that  of  the  members  of  our  own  Protestant  Episcopal  commun¬ 
ion. — Chicago,  Ill.,  Feb.  18,  18G9.”  This  is  signed  by  the  following  clergymen  : 
W.  1L  Cooper,  D.D.,  H.  N.  Powers,  D.D.,  Chas.  Edward  Cheney,  J.  A.  Russel, 
Samuel  Cowell,  K.  W.  Woods,  with  their  charges.  Also,  by  the  following  laymen, 
of  whom  thirteen  are  Wardens  or  Vestrymen — all,  as  well  as  the  clergymen,  in  the 
Diocese  of  Illinois,  viz. :  “  Alex.  G.  Tyng,  Matthew  Griswold,  Gurdon  S.  Hubbard, 
William  Hanley,  M.D.,  James  Cockroft,  John  H.  Kedzie,  A.  Resler,  Hiram  Norton, 

C.  H.  Jordan,  S.  Johnston,  David  B.  Lyman,  George  A.  Sackett,  Henry  C.  Smith, 
J.  J.  Richards,  E.  G.  Wolcott,  Albert  Crane,  J.  N.  Staples.”  “  The  foregoing  Protest, 
with  the  names  thereunto  appended,  was  sent  to  a  few  of  the  clergy,  with  a  request 
to  know  whether  they  would  sign  it,  and  whether  they  would  approve  of  a  call  for 
a  meeting  in  Chicago  in  June  next,  of  the  Evangelical  Clergy  and  Laity  of  our 
Church  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  topics  connected  with  the  Protest,  and  trans¬ 
acting  such  other  business  as,  under  the  circumstances,  may  then  be  deemed  expe¬ 
dient.  Only  five  unfavorable  replies  have  been  received.  The  clergy,  whose 
names  are  hereunto  annexed,  have  heartily  approved  the  Protest,  and  expressed  a 
wish  for  the  meeting  in  June,  and,  so  far  as  possible,  have  agreed  to  be  present.” 
Then  the  following— all  Revs. :  “  Lewis  P.  Clover,  D.D.,  B.  F.  Noakes,  J.  Ram  bo, 
Charles  W.  Quick,  D.  R.  Brewer,  W.  R.  Stockton,  Chas.  B.  Stout,  J.  Rice  Taylor, 
B.  F.  Taylor,  Wm.  R.  Woodbridge,  W.  C.  French,  Edward  W.  Peet,  D.D.,  Benjamin 
Hartley,  W.  F.  Llioyd,  Samuel  Cutler,  John  A.  Jerome,  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  R.  II. 
Williamson,  Joseph  H.  Clinch,  James  B.  Britton,  Wm.  V.  Bowers,  James  McElroy, 

D. D.,  A.  Dalton,  Theodore  Irving,  LL.D.,  F.  B.  Nash,  Geo.  Z.  Gray,  C.  E.  Butler, 
Alex.  Jones,  D.D.,  Henry  M.  Stuart,  J.  Crocker  White,  E.  W.  Appleton,  S.  R.  Wel¬ 
don,  S.  II.  Boyer,  Wm.  Wright,  D.  II.  Deacon,  Wm.  J.  Ellis,  F.  D.  Haskins,  E.  II. 
Canfield,  D.D.,W.  W.  Spear,  D.D.,  T.  F.  Caskey,  Geo.  E.  Thrall,  N.  N.  Cowgill,  Mason 
Gallagher, Wm.  M.  Ross,  John  P.  Hubbard,  R.  W.  Oliver,  Henry  Dana  Ward,  Samuel 
A.  Clark,  Thomas  Duncan,”  with  their  residences.  [And  the  name  of  Charles  E. 
Cheney  signed  to  this  document,  may  account  for  the  relentless  spirit  with  which 
he  was  pursued  by  Bishop  Whitehouse.] 


130 


CHAPTER  XI. 


Section  14^. 

(14-1)  A  Call  to  Meet  in  Chicago  on  June  16,  1869,  dated  April  19,  1869,  was 
sent  in  a  printed  circular  signed  by  four  laymen  :  “  Gurdon  S.  Hubbard,  George  A, 
Sackett,  John  H.  Kedzie,  and  Albert  Crane — Committee  on  Imitation’'  They  say: 
“  ...  .A  powerful  party  dominant  in  the  Councils  of  the  Church. ..  .is  not  only 
devoid  of  sympathy  with  the  Protestant  spirit  of  the  age,  but  in  many  cases  hostile 
to  its  aims,  principles,  and  institutions. ..  .a  desire  to  affiliate  with  the  corrupt 
Roman  and  Greek  Churches.  A  sacerdotal  system. .  .  .The  doctrine  of  Justification 
perverted.  The  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments  is  strained  to  forms  of  gross  and  super¬ 
stitious  error.  Transubstantiation  is  almost  baldly  taught.  The  Confessional  finds 
its  apologists  and  advocates.  Puerile  and  cumbersome  ceremonies. . .  .The  pulpit 
is  made  the  vehicle  of  priestly  claims. . .  .Co-operation  with  other  Protestant  bodies 
is  opposed  and  ridiculed. ..  .Every  month  witnesses  the  extension  of  the  Sacra¬ 
mental  theory  among  the  clergy,  the  audacity  of  the  propagandists  of  Ritualism, 
and  the  tightening  of  the  bonds  of  Evangelical  Churchmen. . .  .Some  distinguished 
for  their  piety  and  usefulness  are  leaving  the  fold,  and  others  are  on  the  eve  of  such 
a  step,  if  not  soon  afforded  relief,  will  accept  the  only  alternative,”  etc. 

(15)  Chicago  Conference,  June  16-17,  1869,  as  reported  in  the  Chicago  Tribune 
and  Times  extracts.  Officers — President,  Hon.  Felix  R.  Brunot,  of  Pittsburgh. 
Vice-Presidents,  Rev.  Dr.  Richard  Newton,  of  Pa.  ;  Gurdon  S.  Hubbard,  of  Chicago; 
Rev.  Dr.  Andrews,  of  Ya. ;  Col.  B.  Aycrigg,  of  N.  J. ;  Judge  Miller,  of  Wisconsin  ; 
John  J.  Hewitt,  of  Michigan.  Secretaries,  Rev.  C.  W.  Quick,  of  Philadelphia  ;  Rev. 
N.  N.  Cogswell,  of  Ky. ;  Rev.  J.  L.  Smith.  Committee  on  Resolutions,  Rev.  Dr. 
Newton,  of  Pennsylvania,  Chairman;  Rev.  Dr.  Andrews,  of  Ya.;  Rev.  Mr.  Clements, 
of  Ohio  ;  Rev.  M.  Gallagher,  of  N.  J.;  Rev.  Dr.  Cooper,  of  Ill. . .  .Rev.  Dr.  Newton, 
from  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  submitted  the-  following:  Resolved,  As 
the  sense  of  this  Conference,  that  a  careful  revision  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  is  needful  to  the  best  interests  of  the  P.  E.  C.  Resolved,  That  all  words 
and  phrases  seeming  to  teach  that  the  Christian  ministry  is  a  priesthood,  or  the 
Lord’s  Supper  a  Sacrifice,  or  that  Regeneration  is  inseparable  from  Baptism,  should 
be  removed  from  the  Prayer  Book.”  The  resolutions  were  adopted  unanimously. 

xii.  47,  48. 

(16)  Sympathy  for  Rev.  Chas.  E.  Cheney,  May  13,  1871.  The  following  is 
copied  from  one  of  the  original  printed  circulars,  sent  to  me  by  Bishop  Cheney,  in 
answer  to  my  request  for  information,  via.  : 

“  To  the  Rev.  Charles  E.  Cheney  :  Rev.  and  Dear  Brother — We,  the  undersigued 
clergymen  and  laymen  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  hearing  with  much  sor¬ 
row  of  your  trial  and  sentence  to  punishment,  for  having  on  certain  occasions 
omitted  specified  words  in  the  use  of  the  Offices  appointed  for  ‘  Common  Prayer,  and 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Protest¬ 
ant  Episcopal  Church,’  do  hereby  assure  you  of  our  sympathy,  and  of  our  undi¬ 
minished  affection  and  respect.  We  hold  that  the  obligation  of  individual  con¬ 
science,  guided  by  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  just  claims  of  Christian  expediency, 
are  to  be  maintained  and  regarded  as  a  just  and  proper  obedience  to  God,  as  well  as 
the  exercise  of  the  indisputable  right  and  duty  of  man,  in  ministering  any  offices 
appointed  for  public  or  private  worship,  by  ordinances  or  rules  which  are  of  human 
origin,  and  established  by  man’s  authority.  We  believe  that  the  determination  to 


CHAPTER  XI. 


131 


16th.  Section. 

teach  nothing  ‘  but  that  which  you  shall  be  persuaded  may  be  concluded  and  proved 
by  the  Scripture,’  while  faithfully  adhering  to  the  Creeds  and  Articles  of  Faith 
established  by  the  Church,  is  consistent  loyalty  to  this  Church,  and  is  demanded 
by  the  vows  of  ordination,  even  when  leading  to  such  action  as  that  with  which  you 
have  been  charged  in  the  trial  of  which  we  have  spoken.  Accordingly  we  maintain 
your  right  to  such  decision  and  action  as  that  for  which  you  have  been  punished  by 
an  ecclesiastical  sentence,  as  a  right  which  many  others  of  the  clergy  of  the  Prot¬ 
estant  Episcopal  Church,  experiencing  similar  difficulties,  have  habitually  exercised. 
We  feel  that  it  would  indeed  be  a  sad  day  for  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  if 
it  should  autlioritalively  declare  that  no  verbal  deviation  from  any  of  its  prescrip¬ 
tions,  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  true  to  its  formularies  of  faith,  is  to  be  tolerated 
under  any  stress  of  conscience  or  circumstances  of  expediency  whatever.  Praying 
that  God  may  guide  and  comfort  you  in  your  perplexities  and  sorrows,  and  that 
your  ministry  for  Christ  may  ever  be  as  blessed  as  it  has  hitherto  been,  we  remain, 
yours  fraternally.” 

(17)  Then  follow  12  printed  names  without  their  titles,  which  are  now  added  as 
far  as  known  :  “  S.  H.  Tyng,  D.D.,  H.  Dyer,  D.D.,  Sec.  E.  K.  S.,  John  Cotton  Smith, 
D.D.,  Win.  T.  Sabine,  Wm.  S.  Langford,  B.  B.  Leacock,  D.D.,  W.  H.  Reid,  Abbott 
Brown,  John  Crocker  White,  William  Hyde,  T.  F.  Caskey,  George  Z.  Gray.”  Then 
the  note  :  “  Please  sign  and  collect  signatures,  and  return  speedily  to  either  of  the 
last  two  of  the  above  gentlemen,  2  Bible  House,  New  York.  On  the  13th  of  May 
all  signatures  then  received  will  be  sent  to  Mr.  Cheney.” 

(18)  The  following  names  are  now  copied  by  me  from  the  manuscript  signatures, 
with  the  addition  of  their  positions  ;  and  of  clergymen  only,  reserving  the  laity  for 
(xi.  20) :  “R.  C.  Matlack,  Sec.  Ev.  Ed.  Soc.;  Dr.  S.  A.  Clark,  late  of  Elizabeth,  N. 
J.  ;  Dr.  Kingston  Goddard,  of  Staten  Island  ;  Prof.  John  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  of  Cam¬ 
bridge  Theol.  Scm.  ;  Professors  J.  J.  McElhinney,  S.  A.  Bronson,  D.D.,  A.  Blake, 
Morris  A.  Tyng,  of  Gambier  Theol.  Sem.  ;  Dr.  Julius  E.  Grammar,  of  Baltimore  ; 
Dr.  Richard  Newton,  of  Philadelphia  ;  J.  S.  Bush,  of  San  Francisco  ;  Washington 
Rodman,  of  Philadelphia  ;  J.  S.  Copley  Green,  of  Mass.  ;  Abbott  Brown  and  J.  A. 
Aspinwall,  of  New  York  as  given  by  Dr.  Llopkins.  Also  the  following:  “  J.  Ho¬ 
ward  Smith,  S.  H.  Tyng,  Jr.,  New  York  ;  Samuel  Cutler,  Mass. ;  H.  LI.  Morrell, 
D.D.,  Ohio  (former  Sec.  Bd.  For.  Miss.);  Asa  Dalton,  Maine,  (once  editor  of  Chris¬ 
tian  Times) ;  Tlios.  A.  Jaggar,  Phila.  ;  Chas.  W.  Quick,  (editor  of  Episcopalian) ; 
W.  H.  Munroe,  Penn.  ;  W.  I.  Johnson,  Iowa;  J.  Rambo,  Iowa  ;  Peter  A.  Jay,  N. 
Y.  ;  W.  B.  Bodine,  N.  Y.  ;  John  A.  Jerome,  Pa.;  R.  LI.  Williamson,  Pa. ;  A.  LI. 
Morrison,  Pa.  ;  J.  Newton  Stanger,  Del.;  G.  L.  Platt,  N.  Y. ;  E.  W.  Peet,  D.D., 
Mass. ;  Charles  Stewart,  Kansas  ;  C.  B.  Stout,  Iowa  ;  L.  N.  Freeman,  Mo.  ;  D.  D. 
Smith,  N.  Y. ;  N.  Neilson  McVickar,  N.  Y. ;  E.  F.  Remington,  N.  Y.  ;  J.  C.  Fleiscli- 
hacker,  N.  Y.  ;  N.  C.  Pridham,  Md.  ;  LI.  H.  Morrell,  Ohio ;  Chas.  H.  Tucker,  N.  Y.  ; 
J.  E.  Homans,  N.  Y.  ;  J.  S.  Brown,  N.  J.  ;  George  E.  Thrall,  N.  Y.  ;  W.  ILuckel, 

N.  Y. ;”  W.  H.  Neilson,  Jr.,  Pa. ;  J.  P.  Hubbard,  R.  I.  (who  was  tried  xii.  41,  42)  ; 

O.  W.  Landreth,  Pa.  ;  W.  M.  Postlethwaite,  N.  Y.  ;  J.  G.  Ames,  N.  Y. 

(19)  The  above  all  signed  the  document.  Then  A.  B.  Hard,  Pa.,  and  J.  II.  Mc- 
Mechin,  Va.,  are  sent  by  C.  W.  Quick,  who  says  he  is  authorized  to  send  these 
names.  Then  signed  to  the  original  document  is  R.  Ileber  Newton,  together  with 


132 


CHAPTER  XI. 


19th  Section. 

“  Kingston  Goddard,”  and  a  note  in  pencil  mark,  “  Mr.  Newton  afterwards  by  letter 
withdrew  liis  name.”  This  completes  the  list  of  clergymen. 

(20)  Laymen.  In  the  same  package  is  a  list  of  laymen  which  is  here 
copied  without  verification,  and  that  is  doubtless  a  correct  list  of  the  names 
omitted  when  verifying  the  list  of  the  clergy.  They  are  here  arranged 
by  States.  This  list  is  headed,  “Laymen,  nearly  all  Wardens  and  Vestry¬ 
men  of  Churches.” — New  York ;  Stewart  Brown,  James  M.  Brown,  Henry 
Bowers,  Thos.  O.  Farrington,  E.  S.  T.  Arnold,  E.  G.  Ludlow,  C.  S.  Cozzens,  A. 
Munk,  Jas.  It.  Davis,  Isaac  McGuire,  Wm.  Davis,  W.  H.  Small,  Geo.  F.  Wilson, 
Robert  Dawes,  II.  R.  Beesey,  A.  F.  Seward,  John  McNabb,  B.  C.  Wetmore,  Frank 
L.  Moore,  J.  B.  Daniell,  0.  J.  Sclilegel,  G.  T.  M.  Davis,  A.  G.  Norwood,  J.  D.  Fitch, 
S.  Hand,  E.  C.  Bogert,  J.  T.  Young,  J.  R.  Lawrence,  J.  W.  Blatcliford,  G.  L.  Sabine, 

A.  Forbes,  E.  II.  Allen,  C.  B.  Stockwell,  Wm.  Graydon,  J.  S.  Day,  L.  A.  Robertson, 
J.  A.  Slipper,  G.  A.  Booth,  H.  Dailey,  D.  C.  Winslow,  Geo.  Self,  E.  Keat,  James 
Neir,  B.  C.  Townsend,  J.  A.  Perry,  N.  A.  Perry,  Henry  Purdy,  N.  Beichall,  J.  J. 
Crane,  Edgar  Williams,  Thos.  N.  Faite,  Jr.,  H.  Smith  Brown,  Chas.  V.  Faile,  Thos. 
II.  Messenger,  H.  G.  Hadden,  J.  S.  Warner,  Adon  Smith,  Jr.,  S.  W.  Torrey,  B.  W. 
Greene,  A.  F.  Warberton,  C.  C.  Hastings. — From  New  Jersey :  J.  P.  Pennington, 
E.  K.  Miller,  Jno.  Rutherford,  Jas.  D.  Orton,  Silas  Merchant,  J.  H.  Allison,  F.  R. 
Wilkinson,  0.  W.  Blackfair,  S.  K.  Wilson,  Chas.  Hewitt,  Earl  English,  U.  S.  N., 
Joseph  Little,  Dan’l  Phillips,  John  Moore,  H.  G.  Scudder,  Jos.  Reeves,  T.  Abbott, 
J.  K.  Freese,  Chas.  S.  Olden,  D.  A.  Clarke,  G.  N.  Grant,  Geo.  James,  War.  Greene, 
J.  C.  Burgelin,  E.  Hanson,  A.  W.  English,  Solon  Humphreys,  A.  B.  Warner,  S.  T. 
Brown. — From  Pennsylvania :  Jay  Cooke,  R.  B.  Sterling,  W.  C.  Houston,  Thos.  H. 
Powers,  W.  P.  Cresson,  C.  G.  Tower,  J.  M.  Campbell,  H.  K.  Bowman,  H.  Nicholl, 
— From  Maryland  :  Wm.  Woodward,  Chas.  Markell,  W.  G.  Bauserner,  E.  L. 
Focke,  B.  M.  Dennis. — From  Washington  :  Hon.  C.  Delano. — From  Illinois  :  J. 
H.  Kedzie,  H.  S.  Slaymaker,  A.  Herlon,  J.  Terliune,  Jr.,  Shepherd  Johnston,  G.  S. 
Bowen,  M.  C.  Follensbee,  B.  L.  Layton,  T.  B.  Lyman,  J.  W.  Farley,  C  .  Follensbee, 
L.  N.  Freeman,  C.  H.  Jordan,  Job  Carpenter. — From  Maine  :  Fred.  Davis,  S.  T. 
Corser,  T.  B.  Talford,  C.  Pager,  F.  H.  Barley,  G.  H.  Starr,  J.  H.  Eaton,  W.  A. 
Salem,  L.  H.  Whitney,  M.  D.  L.  Lane. — From  Rhode  Island  :  Horace  Babcock,  H. 
N.  Campbell,  Edwin  Babcock,  Albert  Babcock,  James  H.  Cross.  Thus  ends  the  list 
of  laymen. 

(21)  Changes.  (1)  The  Rev.  R.Heber  Newton  retracted  at  an  unknown  date  (xi. 
19).,  and  he  republished  the  Philadelphia  card  (ii.  Dec.  1,  1873  ;  x.  15). — (2)  The 
Churchman  of  March  13, 1875,  quotes  (St.  X) — “  Ohio,  Gambier.  The  Rev.  William 

B.  Bodine,  rector  of  Harcourt  parish,  has  published  a  letter  under  date  24th  Feb.,  ex¬ 
pressing  his  regret  at  having  signed  the  letter  of  sympathy  to  Mr.  Cheney,  which 
appeared  in  June,  1871,  adding  that  to-day  he  could  not  undertake  to  defend  it,  nor 
would  he  be  willing  to  be  judged  by  the  sentiments  which  it  expresses.”  This  ad¬ 
mits  of  a  doubt  as  to  his  real  meaning.  I  presume  that  no  one  has  examined  the 
original  documents  from  May,  1871,  until  they  were  opened  by  me  a  few  days 
since.  Mr.  Bodine,  speaking  from  memory,  may  have  made  the  same  mistake  as 
(iii.  March  1,  Brook)  and  supposed  that  these  signatures  were  after  the  deposition, 
and  may  mean  that  he  could  not  defend  such  action,  while  in  fact  he  may  still  hold 
to  the  Old  Evangelical  policy  (xi.  22). — (3)  Dr.  Jaggar  (iii.  Mar.  10, 1875)  says:  “  The 


CHAPTER  XI. 


133 


21st  Section. 

ground  of  my  action  was  sympathy. . .  .and  not  approval  of  his  course,  and  certainly 
I  have  not  approved  of  his  subsequent  course.”  Here  is  no  room  for  doubt  that  he 
remembers  the  circular  to  have  been  signed  before  the  deposition.  This  does  not 
represent  a  change  of  opinion,  but  that  at  the  time  he  signed  one  circular  in  com¬ 
pany  with  Rev.  W.  H.  Neilson,  assistant  minister,  and  W.  P.  Cresson,  vestryman, 
of  Holy  Trinity,  Philadelphia,  and  another  circular  in  company  with  Rev.  W.  Neil¬ 
son  McVickar,  and  Rev.  E.  F.  Remington,  and  headed  “  Sign  !”  in  emphatic  form, 
He  did  not  agree  on  this  point  with  the  Old  Evangelicals,  as  shown  below  (xi.  22); 
and  he  signed  the  Philadelphia  Card  (ii.  Dec.  1,  1873,  Card  ;  iii.  Oct.  29,  1874,  Infant 
Baptism  ;  Feb.  8,  1875,  Jag.;  Feb.  10,  do;  do;  Log;  Feb.  18,  Log;  Bishop;  Feb. 
27,  Rev. ;  March  1;  March  3,  Brook  ;  March  10,  Jag.Brook;  March  12,  Jag. ;  March 
13,  Dr. ;  Reformed  ;  March  15,  Dr;  xx.  3). 

(22)  Now,  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  object  of  this  circular  was  analogous  to 
that  of  a  political  mass  meeting,  to  operate  upon  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  in  Il¬ 
linois,  and  prevent  the  deposition  of  Dr.  Cheney,  for  the  sake  of  the  signers,  as  well 
as  for  his.  The  general  wish  of  the  Old  Evangelicals  was  to  omit  the  Regeneration 
clause,  and  consequently  to  prevent  a  formal  decision  against  such  omission.  Many 
of  them  were  in  the  habit  of  omitting  it.  From  the  Episcopalian  (iii.  July  15, 

1874)  it  appears  that  Dr.  Newton  in  his  pamphlet  claims  that  clergymen  in  the  P. 
E.  C.  have  the  righi  to  do  as  Dr.  Cheney  did,  and  that  he  does  so,  and  he  is  one  of 
the  signers  in  manuscript.  And  Church  and  State  (iii.  Aug.  13,  1874)  says  :  “  We 
are. . .  .attracted  at  once  by  the  position  of  Dr.  Newton,”  and  its  editor,  Rev.  John 
Cotton  Smith,  D.D.,  is  one  of  the  names  printed  on  the  circular  (xi.  17).  And  Dr. 
Andrews,  of  Virginia,  in  the  General  Convention  (iii.  Oct.  29,  1874)  says:  “  One  of 
the  greatest  minds  in  the  country  left  our  ministry  lately,  solely  on  account  of  the 
Baptismal  Office. ..  .In  Illinois. ..  .the  sole  trouble  was  about  this  office. ..  .Take 
the  other  seceders,  I  know  all  of  them  who  have  given  most  character  to  the  move¬ 
ment,  and  in  every  case  it  was  this  office  and  this  alone  which  started  them,  though 
when  they  determined  to  leave,  they  raised  all  the  objections  they  could  think  of.” 
And  the  Committee  (iii.  Oct.  29,  1874)  says  that  more  than  500  clergymen,  and  a 
very  large  number  of  vestries  and  other  laymen,  and  the  nearly  unanimous  action 
of  one  of  the  largest  dioceses  [Virginia]  desire  relaxation  of  the  Rubrics.  Hence 
the  omission  of  the  Regeneration  clause  has  been  a  standard  doctrine  of  the  Old 
Evangelicals.  Many  did  omit  it.  All  wished  tp  omit  it.  If  there  were  no  formal 
decision  against  such  omission,  the  compulsory  Rubric  might  become  a  dead  letter 
like  some  other  parts  of  the  Prayer  Book,  and  this  was  doubtless  the  general  object 
of  the  signers.  But  from  the  letter  of  Dr.  Jaggar  to  Bishop  Stevens  (iii.  Mar.  10, 

1875)  it  appears  that  Dr.  Jaggar  could  not  have  been  one  of  those  who  like  Dr. 
Newton  omitted  the  Regeneration  clause,  nor  like  Dr.  John  Cotton  Smith  did  he 
approve  this  omission  by  others  (iii.  July  15,  1874  ;  Aug.  13,  1874  ;  xx.  3). 

(23)  The  three  Evangelical  Societies  in  the  P.  E.  C. — Whittaker’s  Protest¬ 
ant  Episcopal  Almanac  for  1874,  pp.  146,  147,  has  the  following  names,  and  those 
who  have  left  the  P.  E.  C.  for  the  R.  E.  C.  are  now  (April  1,  1875)  distinguished  by 
being  printed  in  capitals. 

“The  American  Church  Missionary  Society. — President ,  W.  H.  Aspinwall. 
Vice-Presidents,  Rev.  John  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  Rev.  N.  H.  Schenk,  D.D.,  Rev.  W.  R. 
Nicholson,  D.D.,  Hon.  Chas.  S.  Olden,  W.  Woodward,  J.  M.  Brown.  Recording 


134 


CHAPTER  XI. 


23d  Section. 

Secretary ,  Rev.  W.  X.  McVickar.  Treasurer,  George  D.  Morgan.  Executive  Com¬ 
mittee,  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  D.D.,  J.  Cotton  Smith,  D.D.,  R.  Newton,  D.D.,  W.  T.  Sa¬ 
bine,  K.  Goddard,  D.D.,  Phillips  Brooks,  W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  W.  S.  Lang¬ 
ford,  W.  M.  P ostleth w aite,  John  A.  Aspinwall,  Messrs.  W.  A.  Haines,  Frederic 

G.  Foster,  D.  J.  Ely,  Stewart  Brown,  Solon  Humphreys,  Henry  A.  Oakley,  J.  S. 
Amory,  F.  R.  Brunot,  H.  B.  Ren  wick,  R.  A.  Brick.  Secretaries,  Rev.  H.  Dyer,  D.D., 
and  Rev.  W.  A.  Newbold. 

Evangelical  Knowledge  Society.— President,  The  Rt.  Rev.  A.  Lee,  D.D., 
Vice-Presidents,  Rt.  Revs.  B.  B.  Smith,  D.D.,  John  Johns,  D.D.,  John  Payne,  D.D., 

H.  W.  Lee,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  G.  T.  Bedell,  D.D.,  W.  Bacon  Stevens,  D.D.,  Thomas  H. 
Vail,  D.D.,  G.  D.  Cummins,  D.D.,  F.  M.  Whittle,  D.D.,  0.  W.  Whittaker,  D.D. 
Executive  Committee,  Revs.  H.  Dyer,  D.D.  (Sec.),  S.  Cooke,  D.D.,  J.  Cotton  Smith, 

D. D.,  S.  H.  Tyng,  Jr.,  D.D.,  N.  H.  Schenk,  D.D.,  W.  N.  McVickar,  Messrs.  G.  D. 
Morgan,  S.  Brown,  F.  G.  Foster,  J.  Pierpont  Morgan,  J.  H.  Earle,  C.  R.  Marvin, 
H.  B.  Ren  wick.  Sec.,  Rev.  D.  S.  Miller,  D.D.  Treas.  Frederic  G.  Foster. 

Evangelical  Education  Society. — Managers  :  President, 

■Sec.,  Rev.  R.  C.  Matlack  ;  Treas.,  W.  C.  Houston.  Rev.  J.  Cotton  Smith,  D.D.,  J. 

E.  Grammar,  D.D.,  Benjamin  Watson,  D.D.,  D.  S.  Miller,  D.D.,  Richard  Newton, 

D. D.,  Wilbur  F.  Paddock,  D.D.,  S.  E.  Appleton,  D.D.,  A.  H.  Vinton,  D.D.,  J.  IL 
Eccleston,  D.D.,  J.  Pratt,  D.D.,  C.  D.  Cooper,  W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  P.  Brooks, 
A.  M.  Randolph  and  J.  B.  Falkner  ;  Messrs.  Stuart  Brown,  Cassius  F.  Lee,  John 
Bohlen,  Edward  Olmstead,  W.  P.  Cresson,  and  S.  G.  De  Coursey. 

(24)  Old  Evangelicals. — In  the  list  of  names  (xi.  5)  the  three  Evangelical  So¬ 
cieties  (xi.  23),  were  represented  by  their  secretaries,  viz.  :  Rev.  H.  Dyer,  of  the  E. 
K.  S.,  then  and  now.  Also,  Rev.  Franklin  S.  Rising,  Sec.  Am.  Ch.  Miss.  Soc.,  and 
Rev.  Rob.  J.  Parvin,  Sec.  Ev.  Ed.  Soc.  These  two  while  on  executive  duty  were 
both  burnt  to  death  Dec.  4,  1868,  on  board  the  steamboat  United  States,  on  the  Ohio 
river.  Also,  their  present  successors  in  office,  Rev.  W.  A.  Newbold,  Sec.  A.  C.  M. 
S.,  and  Rev.  Robt.  Matlack,  Sec.  E.  E.  S.  And  Mr.  Rising  was  the  principal  au¬ 
thor  of  the  tract  “  Are  there  Romanizing  Germs  in  the  Prayer  Book?” 

Also,  among  the  above  are  the  names  of  some  who  signed  the  Philadelphia 
Card  (ii.  Dec.  1,  1873,  Card),  viz.  :  Revs.  R.  Heber  Newton  (xi.  21),  Thos.  A.  Jaggar 
(xi.  21) ;  J.  B.  Falkner  (then  J.  F.  Blake),  Snyder  B.  Simes,  James  Pratt,  D.D. 

Also  who  left  the  P.  E.  C.  before  the  inauguration  of  the  R.  E.  C.  Viz. :  Revs. 
Marshall  B.  Smith  to  Reformed  (Dutch)  Church,  H.  W.  Woods  and  M.  McCormick 
to  Baptist :  A.  M.  Wylie  to  Presbyterian  ;  J.  W.  Cracraft  to  Congregational ;  John 
Cromlish  to  Methodist  Episcopal ;  Mason  Gallagher,  and  S.  R.  Weldon  and  Geo. 

E.  Thrall  to  Independent. 

(25)  Also  the  names  G.  D.  Cummins,  Ch.  E.  Cheney,  M.  B.  Smith,  Mason  Gal¬ 
lagher,  B.  B.  Leacock,  C.  H.  Tucker,  W.  T.  Sabine,  J.  E.  Brown,  W.  M.  Postle- 
thwaite,  W.  R.  Nicholson,  J.  Howard  Smith,  will  be  found  above,  and  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  : 

(26)  Clergymen  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  marked  as  having  been,  E.  (Protestant  Epis¬ 
copal);  P.  (Presbyterian);  M.  (Methodist);  R.  (R.  E.  C.  in  which  they  first  entered 
the  Ministry). 

In  May,  1874,  at  the  Second  Council  (i.  May  13  to  19). 

Bishop  G.  D.  Cummins,  D.D. — E.  (i.  May  13, 1874 ;  iv.  2,  5  ;  v.  4  ;  vi.  3,  5 ;  vii.  1 ; 


CHAPTER  XI. 


135 


26th  Section. 

viii.  1  to  4 ;  ix.  4  to  9  ;  12  to  15  ;  x.  1  to  14  ;  17  to  22  ;  xi.  23,  27  ;  xiii.  10  to 
26  ;  xiv.  10,  etc.,  etc.) 

Bishop  C.  E.  Cheney,  D.D. — E.  (i.  May  18,  1874  ;  ii.  Nov.  27,  1873  ;  x.  10  to  14  ; 

17  to  24  ;  xi.  7,  11,  14,  16  to  22,  25  to  36 ;  xiii.  13,  etc.,  etc.) 

Rev.  R.  H.  Bourne.— E.  (i.  May  13,  1874  ;  xi.  28,  29,  31,  32,  33,  35.) 

“  W.  V.  Felt  well. — E.  (i.Mav  13,  1874;  Dec.  2,  1873;  Feb.  17,  1875.  Monc.) 

“  Mason  Gallagher. — E.  (i.  May  13,  1874  ;  vii.  5  ;  ix.  4  to  9  ;  x.  10  to  24 ;  xi.  7 
12, 14,  15,  24  to  36  ;  xiii.  12). 

“  T.  J.  McFadden. — E.  (i.  May  13,  1874.) 

“  Wm.  McGuire.—  E.  (i.  May*13,  1874  ;  Feb.  25,  1874.) 

“  Johnson  McCormac. — E.  (i.  May  13,  1874). 

“  B.  B.  Leacock,  D.D. — E.  (i.  May  13,  1874  ;  x.  10  to  24  ;  xi.  7,  17,  25  to  36 ; 
xiii.  12). 

“  E.  D.  Neill.— P.  (i.  April  22,  1874 ;  May  13,  1874  ;  ii.  July  8,  1874.  Dif.) 

“  W.  H.  Reid.— E.  (i.  May  13,  1874;  xi.  17.) 

“  W.  T.  Sabine.— E.  (i.  May  13,  1874  ;  xi.  7,  17,  23,  2o,  26.) 

“  Marshall  B.  Smith. — E.  (i.  May  13,  1874  ;  vi.  2,  3  ;  vii.  2,  3,  4  ;  ix.  4  to  10  ; 
x.  10  to  24  ;  xi.  5  ;  Editor,  6,  8  in  1867  : — 24,  resigned — vii.  2  on  March,  15, 
1869 — dismissed  to  R.  E.  C.  ix.  10  ;  xi.  25  to  37  :  xiii.  12,  21,  27  ;  xiv.  6.) 

“  Thompson  L.  Smith. — E.  (i.  May  13,  1874.) 

“  Charles  H.  Tucker.— E.  (i.  May  13,  1874;  x.  23,  24;  xi.  7,  18,  25,  26,  32,  33, 
35,  36.) 

“  J.  D.  Wilson.— E.  (i.  May  13,  1874 ;  iii.  March  11,  1874.) 

“  Walter  Windeyer— E.  (i.  May  13,  1874.) 

Additions  since  May  19,  1874 : 

Rev.  II.  H.  Brooks. — M. 

“  B.  B.  Usher,  M.  D. — R 
“  W.  S.  Perkins. 

“  J.  S.  Malone. — E. 

“  John  Todd,  M.  A. — M.,  Rector  in  Sussex,  N.  B.  (i.  Dec.  30,  1874). 

“  J.  P.  Davis. 

“  J.  A.  Latane.— E.  (iii.  Jan.  12,  1874). 
u  Edwin  Potter. — M. 

“  W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D. — E.  (iii.  Nov.  25  and  Dec.  16,  1874  ;  xi.  8,  12,  23,  23). 

Rector  of  Second,  R.  E.  C.  in  Philadelphia. 

“  W.  M.  Postlethwaite. — E.  (iii.  Dec.  24,  1874;  xi.  7,  18,  23).  Associate  Rector 
with  Bishop  Cheney. 

“  J.  C.  Pratt. — E. 

“  J.  Howard  Smith,  D.D. — E.  (iii.  Feb.  17,  1875 ;  xi.  18).  Rector  in  New¬ 
ark,  N.  J.. 
u  Wm.  Bower. 

“  J.  E.  Brown. — E.  (xi.  7).  Rector  at  Moncton,  N.  B. 

“  Edward  Cridge. — Ch.  Eng. ;  late  Dean  of  Victoria,  B.  C.  (i.  Nov*  4,  Dec.  9,  1874; 
Vic). 

“  Benjamin  Johnson.  -E.  (iii.  Dec.  23,  1874). 

[Not  having  a  full  list  of  the  clergy  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  and  the  printer  requiring 
copy,  the  other  names  will  be  given  in  Chapter  XX.] 


( 


136  CHAPTER  XT. 

27tli  Section. 

(27)  A  comparison  of  the  Call  to  organize  (ix.  1,2,)  with  the  Declaration  of 
Principles  (xi.  2),  will  show  the  two  to  agree  in  general  principles,  hut  the  latter  to 
he  carried  out  with  greater  precision.  The  circumstances  will  account  for  the  dif¬ 
ferences.  The  Call  was  a  hasty  production,  drawn  up  in  a  very  short  time  during 
the  conference  which  began  in  the  afternoon  of  Nov.  12,  and  ended  before  noon  of 
Nov.  13,  1873,  and  occupying  only  a  portion  of  this  time,  and  one  of  the  party  a  lay¬ 
man.  This  Cali  brought  in  the  Rev.  Dr.  Cheney  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Leacock,  and 
the  Declaration  of  Principles  was  the  joint  production  of  all,  with  the  assistance  of 
persons  not  identified  with  the  movement,  and  with  time  for  study  between  Nov. 
13  and  Dec.  2,  1873. 

(28)  Nearly  all  who  took  part  in  the  organization  on  Dec.  2,  had  from  Nov.  12, 
or  soon  after,  been  in  constant  consultation  with  each  other,  and  with  several  dis¬ 
tinguished  men  of  different  denominations  who  favored  the  movement ;  and  had 
twice  met  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  discuss  all  the  movements  required  in 
organizing.  Hence,  nearly  everything  which  appeared  in  public  on  Dec.  2  was 
the  result  of  a  foregone  conclusion  with  which  all  who  took  part  were  satisfied  in 
advance,  and  the  most  important  resolutions  were  passed  without  public  discus¬ 
sion,  and  the  meeting  had  more  the  appearance  of  a  meeting  for  religious  exercises 
than  for  business.  To  this  there  was  one  exception,  in  the  election  of  Bishop  Che¬ 
ney,  respecting  which  there  had  been  no  previous  understanding,  as  far  as  I  know  or 
suppose. 

(29)  The  Declaration  of  Principles,  the  basis  and  foundation  upon  which 
rest  all  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  this  Church,  were  ordered  to  be  inserted  in 
the  Prayer  Books  and  Journals  as  enduring  monuments  of  the  characteristics  of 
this  Church  for  all  time. 

(30)  The  Executive  Committee,  composed  of  the  two  Bishops  and  of  all  the 
members  of  all  the  other  committees,  was  a  temporary  arrangement  to  carry  on 
provisionally  the  government  of  the  new  Church  and  prepare  a  Constitution  and 
Canons,  and  a  Revised  Prayer  Book  to  be  presented  for  amendment  and  adoption  at 
the  Second  General  Council  to  be  held  in  May  next  thereafter. 

(31)  As  to  the  date  of  the  next  Council,  there  were  two  considerations.  The 
first,  in  favor  of  a  later  date,  in  order  to  allow  more  time  for  completing  the  work 
committed  to  the  Executive  Committee.  It  was  known  that  the  time  would  be  too 
short  to  do  everything  required.  Having  been  a  lay  member  of  one  Committee  of 
which  the  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith  was  Chairman,  and  did  all  the  hard  work,  and 
of  the  other  Committee,  of  which  the  Rev.  Dr.  B.  B.  Leacock  was  Chairman,  and 
did  all  the  hard  work,  I  could  judge  of  the  immense  amount  of  labor  done  by  both, 
and  for  which  they  received  the  thanks  of  the  Council.  Still,  the  whole  of  the 
work  could  not  be  accomplished,  and  the  remainder  will  come  before  the  Third 
Council. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  absence  of  written  law,  excessive  powers  were  neces¬ 
sarily  given  to  the  Executive  Committee,  and  it  was  important  that  this  abnormal 
condition  should,  as  soon  as  practicable,  be  superseded  by  a  government  that  is 
more  in  accordance  with  our  political  institutions  and  with  the  views  of  the  proper 
form  of  Church  Government,  as  entertained  by  the  founders  of  the  new  Church. 
Hence  the  date  in  May  was  a  compromise  between  the  two. 

(32)  Second  General  Council,  May  13-19,  1874.  The  results  of  these 


137 


CHAPTER  XI. 

«»  s  .. 

32d  Section. 

meetings  were  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  and  Canons  for  the  government  of 
the  Church;  and  the  Reformed  Prayer  Book  to  define  its  Services,  and  the  Feder¬ 
ative  Union  with  the  Free  Church  of  England  upon  general  principles  that  can  he 
applied  to  any  other  Evangelical  Church,  and  all  in  accordance  with  the  funda¬ 
mental  Declaration  of  Principles . xi.  2. 

(33)  This  work  was  confirmed  in  six  days,  but  had  been  under  consideration  of 
the  members  long  before  they  met  in  Council.  Thus  : 

(34)  All  the  members  of  the  Executive  Committee  had  been  members  of  the  P. 
E.  C.,  and  none  other  was  admitted  to  the  first  Council.  We  desired  to  retain  the 
familiar  system  of  Church  Government  and  Service  excepting  where  they  were 
defective.  The  Executive  Committee  appointed  one  Committee  on  Constitution  and 
Canons,  with  the  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith  as  Chairman,  and  another  on  the  Revision 
of  the  Prayer  Book,  with  the  Rev.  B.  B.  Leacock,  D.D.,  as  Chairman.  Each  Chair¬ 
man  did  all  the  hard  work  in  his  department,  and  collected  from  various  quarters 
all  the  works  that  would  assist  in  that  department.  Both  of  these  clergymen  had 
for  years  been  members  of  the  Latimer  Society  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  engaged  in  prepar¬ 
ing  a  Revision  of  the  Prayer  Book,  and  were  thus  familiar  with  the  whole  subject. 

(35)  As  fast  as  portions  were  prepared  by  these  sub-committees,  they  were  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  Executive  Committee,  and  there  rediscussed  and  determined,  then  put 
in  print  and  distributed  for  the  examination  of  all  interested,  including  some  who 
were  not  identified  with  us,  but  in  favor  of  the  movement. 

When  the  Council  met,  each  member  having  a  printed  copy,  everything  having 
been  previously  well  considered,  passed  off  rapidly,  except  when  amendments  were 
offered  and  discussed. 

(36)  The  Comparison  of  Prayer  Books  is  given  in  a  general  manner  by  Hubert 

B.  Turner,  Esq.  (pp.  9),  and  in  detail  by  a  “  Presbyter  of  the  R.  E.  C.” — Rev.  M.  B. 
Smith(pp,  47).  These  are  both  in  pamphlet  form.  One  point  is  not  stated.  The 
changes  from  the  old  service  are  of  the  most  conservative  character,  and  show  the 
judgment  in  selecting  from  some  other  part  of  the  old  book,  or  of  the  book  of  1785, 
or  some  other  equally  good  source  that  has  been  confirmed  by  age,  rather  than  an 
effort  to  produce  something  original.  This,  as  a  lay  member,  I  found  on  several 
occasions,  when  finding  words  in  unusual  places,  I  criticised  the  expressions,  sup¬ 
posing  them  to  be  original,  and  was  silenced  by  a  significant  smile,  and  the  remark, 
“  That  is  copied  verbatim,”  etc .  xx.  9. 

ii.  June  25,  1874;  Bishop  Clark;  Dec.  23,  1874,  New  Prayer  Book. 

(37)  The  Free  Church  of  England,  seeing  in  the  public  prints  a  report  of 

our  Declaration  of  Principles,  began  a  correspondence  with  Bishop  Cummins,  which 
led  to  a  proposition  for  a  closer  union  than  mere  sympathy,  from  a  representative 
body  analogous  to  our  Executive  Committee,  through  Bishop  Price,  their  Primus. 
This  culminated  in  the  Federative  Union . xv.  15, 16. 

PRESS  REPORTS. 

(38)  The  Tribune,  in  the  report  of  the  proceedings  on  Dec.  2,  1873,  mistook  the 

name  of  the  temporary  president,  and  called  him  the  Rev.  B.  B.  Leacock  in  place  of 
the  layman,  B.  Aycrigg.  There  was  a  significance  in  this  matter  which  is  ex¬ 
plained . x.  12. 

(39)  The  Tribune  has  given  the  fullest  reports  of  the  action  of  the  R.  E,  C,  at 


133 


CHAPTER  XI. 


39th  Section. 

tlie  two  Councils.  In  the  reports  in  the  Tribune ,  Times,  Herald,  and  other  secular 
papers,  I  have  seen  no  case  of  intentional  misrepresentation  of  facts.  They  have 
criticised  our  action  severely,  and  they  have  laughed  at  us.  To  these  I  raise  no  ob¬ 
jections,  as  long  as  they  do  not  misrepresent  the  facts.  Thus  : 

(40)  The  Times  of  May  19,  1874,  criticises  the  change  in  the  Burial  Service,  and 
says  :  “  It  seems  then  that  the  *  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  ’  is  not  intended  for 
‘notorious  sinners/  unlike  the  Church  which  had  its  origin  in  Judea  eighteen  cen¬ 
turies  ago,  and  the  Founder  of  which  declared  that  He  had  come  to  ‘  seek  and  save 
that  which  is  lost/  ” 

Now  this  reverses  the  case.  The  new  service  is  so  arranged  as  to  meet  the  case 
of  “  notorious  sinners.”  Consequently  this  Rubric,  which  stands  at  the  head  of  the 
Burial  Service  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  has  been  erased,  viz. :  “  Here  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
the  Office  ensuing  is  not  to  be  used  for  any  unbaptized  adults,  any  who  die  excom¬ 
municate,  or  who  have  laid  violent  hands  upon  themselves.”  As  to  “excommuni¬ 
cate  ”  see  (iii.  Oct.  13,  Arbitrary  power).  And  about  20  years  since  a  case  occurred 
a  few  miles  from  this  place,  which  went  the  rounds  of  the  newspapers,  where  a 
well  known  author  would  have  been  buried  like  a  brute  if  all  clergymen  had  fol¬ 
lowed  this  Rubric  as  closely  as  the  one  did  to  whom  application  was  first  made. 
And  the  Protestant  Episcopal  clergyman,  like  a  child  tied  to  a  leading  string  by  his 
nurse,  is  not  allowed  to  deviate  from  the  strict  words  in  the  Prayer  Book,  without 
the  risk  of  being  deposed,  as  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Cheney  for  the  omission  of  a  single 
word  in  the  Baptismal  Service. 

(41)  Again  :  The  Herald  spoke  of  our  singing  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis,  for  a  “  con¬ 
clusion  that  was  not  a  conclusion.”  "Without  discussing  the  propriety  of  dealing  in 
this  manner  with  serious  subjects,  the  remark  was  witty  and  truthful.  It  referred 
to  one  of  the  most  agreeable  circumstances  that  occurred  during  these  meetings. 
The  official  record  is  found  in  the  “Journal”  of  1874,  pages  21,  22,  28,29,  30,  but 
the  circumstances  are  not  given.  They  were  these :  The  printed  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Revision  had  the  Communion  Office  in  this  form,  at  the  end  of  the 
Rubric — “  And  when  he  delivereth  the  Bread  he  shall  say,  Take  and  eat  this  in  re¬ 
membrance/’  etc.  “  And  delivering  the  Cup,  he  shall  say,  Drink  this  in  remem¬ 
brance,”  etc.  The  object  was  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  the  perversion  said  to  be 
practiced  in  using  the  form  in  the  P.  E.  C.  Thus,  “  The  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.” — with  a  full  stop— giving  the  bread  ;  thereby  signifying  that  the  Bread  is 
“  the  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,”  while  the  Prayer  Book  has  a  semicolon  ;  and 
makes  the  remainder  a  part  of  the  sentence,  thus :  “  The  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  which  was  given  for  thee,”  etc.  In  the  same  manner  when  delivering  the 
Cup:  “ The  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.” — with  a  full  stop. 

The  “Journal  ”  shows  the  amendments  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  and  on 
page  28  :  “  The  Council  having  thus  concluded  the  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book,  rose 
and  sang  the  ‘  Gloria  in  Excelsis .’  ” 

But,  disregarding  strict  parliamentary  law,  the  question  having  been  twice  de¬ 
termined,  was  reopened  nem.  con.,  as  shown  on  pages  29-30.  One  of  the  members 
desiring  to  restore  the  old  form,  stopped  speaking,  and  another,  supposing  that  he 
had  finished,  addressed  the  Chair,  and  was  told  that  the  other  had  not  yielded  the 
floor.  The  gentleman  on  the  floor,  finding  that  he  could  not  recover  his  composure, 
sat  down  and  buried  his  face  in  his  hands.  This  being  observed  by  one  who  had 


CHAPTER  XI. 


139 


41st  Section. 

wished  to  leave  the  matter  as  it  had  been  twice  decided,  he  said :  “  It  appears  that 
some  are  deeply  affected  by  this  change  ;  I  move  that  a  Committee  of  Conference 
be  appoimed.”  This  Committee  having  retired,  the  Council  suspended  business, 
and  engaged  in  prayer.  It  was  subsequently  said  that  the  Committee  began  with 
prayer.  The  “  Journal,”  page  30,  shows  the  report  of  this  Committee,  and  that  it 
was  unanimously  adopted ,  and  is  now  the  form  of  the  R.  E.  C. 

(42)  False  and  distorted  statements  in  the  place  of  facts  by  those  who  do  not 
represent  the  secular  press  will  be  found  in  Chapter  II.  Their  authors  should  go  to 
the  secular  reporters  to  learn  honor  if  not  religion. 

(43)  Episcopacy.  If  the  Church  of  England  has  the  Apostolic  Succession  as  a 

historical  fact,  so  has  the  R.  E.  C.  But  the  Declaration  of  Principles  of  the  R.  E.  C. 
(xi.  2),  says :  “  II.  This  Church  recognizes  and  adheres  to  Episcopacy,  not  as  of 

Divine  right,  but  as  a  very  ancient  and  desirable  form  of  Church  Polity.”  and 
“condemns  and  rejects  the  following  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines  as  contrary  to 
God’s  Word  :  First,  That  the  Church  of  Christ  exists  only  in  one  order  or  form 
of  ecclesiastical  polity.”  Now,  that  it  is  “very  ancient”  no  one  will  deny.  In  my 
opinion  it  is  “  desirable,”  in  our  case,  as  a  conservative  human  arrangement,  to  keep 
up  a  uniform  general  system  in  accordance  with  the  standards.  Its  objectionable 
features  have  been  removed  by  the  R.  E.  C.  And  in  the  R.  E.  C.  this  term 
“  Episcopal  ”  implies  that  all  laws  shall  be  general,  as  passed  by  the  General  Coun¬ 
cil,  so  that  minister  and  congregation  being  bound  by  general  laws  which  define 
the  rights  and  duties  of  each,  neither  is  subject  to  the  caprices  of  the  other,  and 
the  people  can  not  be  “  priest-ridden  ”  nor  the  minister  “  parish-ridden”  ii.  Dec. 
31,  1873;  Jan  1,  1874  ;  Jan.  22  ;  Jan.  22 ;  Jan.  29;  Apr.  30,  So.  Ch. ;  Apr.  30,  Mur¬ 
ray ;  June  10,  Open  letter;  xiii.  13 ;  xii.  36-39;  iii.  June  11,  Liberty;  Oct.  13, 
Arbit. ;  Oct.  13,  Rep.;  Oct.  31,  Ref. ;  Nov.  11,  Indep.  ;  Dec.  30,  Ch.;  Jan.  13,  1875, 
Independent  Churches. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


SCHISM  AND  SEPARATION. 


Contents  : — (1  to  8).  Defined . — (9).  Churches  of  Home  and  Constanti¬ 
nople. — (10).  Rome  and  England. — (11).  Rome  a  schism  in  schism. — (12). 
Church  of  England  a  schism  in  schism. — (13).  Under  Mary. — (14).  Under 
Elizabeth. — (15).  Its  Inquisition. — (16).  Compulsion. — (17).  “Act  of  Con¬ 
formity  ”  to  “  The  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established. ” — 
(18).  Dissents  on  removing  compulsion. — (19).  For  political  purposes 
“  comprehends  ”  all  religious  views. — (20).  Was  Protestant  in  the  early  part 
of  this  century ,  but  Ritualists  have  a  legal  status. — (21).  Gladstone  contro¬ 
versy  is  political. — (22).  Character  of  controlling  Parliament. — (23).  Its 
Protestantism  depends  on  Dissenters. — (24).  Its  Canonist  claim. — (25).  P.  E. 
C.  is  legally  a  schism  in  schism. — (26).  Notwithstanding  the  opinion 
expressed  in  1814. — (27,  28).  P.  E.  C.  and  the  Dutch  Church  in  1697,  1779, 
1790. — (29).  Personal  knowledge. — (30  to  35).  P.  E.  C.  before  and  after 
Puseyism  was  introduced. — (36  to  39).  Official  decision  of  Rev.  Dr.  Wain- 
wright. — (40  to  42).  Becomes  a  schism  in  1868. — (43  to  48).  “  Fighting  I — 
(49  to  52).  Results. — (53  to  55).  Pan- Anglicans  controlled  by  English  poli¬ 
tics. — (56).  Triumph  of  the  Ritualists. — (57).  The  Alternative. — (58).  “  Com¬ 
prehensive  ChurchT — (59.)  Last  General  Convention. — (60).  R.  E.  C.  and 
other  Prot.  Churches  not  schisms  nor  in  schism. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  Schism  is  a  sin  by  Apostolic  authority.  In  the  New  Testament  it  signi¬ 
fies  a  split  or  division  between  parties  or  factions,  “  fighting  it  out  within  the 
Church  ”  in  a  single  locality.  This  by  metonymy  is  applied  to  the  factions  or  par¬ 
ties  that  are  on  opposite  sides  in  the  schism,  and  by  extension,  applies  equally 
to  larger  bodies  in  the  Church  at  large,  standing  in  opposition  to  each  other. 

(2)  The  word  schism  is  from  the  Greek  schisma  in  the  singular  and  schismata  in 
the  plural,  and  that  from  schidzo  “  to  split,  to  cleave,  to  rend,  with  violence,”  says 
Robinson’s  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament.  He  gives  examples  of  the  use  of  these 
words  in  the  New  Testament. 

(3)  First  as  to  the  literal  meaning,  in  which  the  word  is  translated  by  the  word 
in  italics  as  follows:  (1),  Luke  5:  36,  “  piece  of  a  new  garment  upon  the  old.... 
the  new  maketh  a  rent  and  the  piece  that  was  taken  out  of  the  new  agreeth  not 
with  the  old.”  (2),  John  19:24,  “the  coat  was  without  seam.... let  us  not  rend 
it.”  (3),  Matt.  27 : 51,  “  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  twain.”  (4),  Mark 
15:38,  “the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  twain.”  (5),  Luke  23:45, 
“  The  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  the  midst.”  (6),  Mark  1 : 10,  “  He  saw  the 

(140) 


CHAPTER  XII, 


141 


3d  Section. 

heavens  opened.”  (7),  John  21 : 11,  “yet  was  not  the  net  broken”  (8),  Matt.  9  : 16. 
“  old  garment . . .  .the  rent  is  mad  e  worse,  (y),  Mark  2  :  21,  “  The  rent  is  made  worse. 
Now  in  all  these  cases  the  pieces  remain  in  close  proximity,  and  are  opposite  to 
each  other.  Xenophon  calls  the  cleft  in  a  hoof  “ schisma” 

(4)  Then  as  to  the  figurative  meaning.  (10)  Acts  14  :  4,  “  The  multitude  were 
divided-,  and  part  held  with  the  Jew3  and  part  with  the  Apostles.”  (11)  John  7  :43, 
“  So  there  was  a  division  among  the  people  because  of  him.”  (12),  John  9  : 16, 
“  Others  said. . .  .and  there  was  a  division  among  them.”  (13),  John  10  : 19,  “  There 
was  a  division  therefore  among  the  Jews  for  these  sayings.”  (14),  1  Cor.  1  : 10,  “I 
beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the 
same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you;  but  that  ye  be  perfectly 
joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same  judgment.’’  (15),  1  Cor.  11:18 

When  ye  come  together  in  the  Church  I  hear  that  there  be  divisions  among 
you,  and  I  partly  believe  it.”  (16),  1  Cor.  12:25,  “  That  there  should  be  no  schism 
in  the  body,  but  that  the  members  should  have  the  same  care  one  for  another.’’ 

(5)  The  analogous  word  translated  “  divisions,”  is  found  in  two  places.  This  is 

in  Greek  JDichostasia,  and  that  from  Dis,  twice,  and  istemi,  to  stand,  or  standing  in 
opposition  to  each  other.  Thus  (17)  Rom.  16  :  17  :  “  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren, 
to  mark  them  which  cause  divisions  and  offenses,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye 
have  learned,  and  avoid  them.”  (18.)  1  Cor.  3:3:  “  For  ye  are  yet  carnal :  for 
whereas  there  is  among  you  envying  and  strife,  and  divisions,  are  ye  not  carnal  and 
walk  as  men  ?  ” . xx.  10. 

'  (6)  In  all  these  cases  (10  to  18)  the  parties  remain  in  close  proximity  and  in  op¬ 
position  to  each  other.  The  only  cases  between  Christians  on  both  sides  are  the 
last  five  (14  to  18),  and  in  all  cases  the  schism  denounced  by  St.  Paul  is  “  Fighting 
it  out  within  the  Church.”  This  is  not  only  Gospel,  but  it  is  common  sense. 
Schism  makes  a  “  house  divided  against  itself.” .  xii.  43. 

(7)  Separation  from  schism  is  a  duty  by  Apostolic  example.  Dean  Cridge 
(ii.  Jan.  13,  1875)  instances  the  cases  of  “Abraham  and  Lot ;  and  as  St.  Paul  when 
he  took  the  disciples  from  the  synagogue.”  But  we  have  the  strongest  possible 
case  where  a  schism,  as  above  described  by  St.  Paul,  occurred  between  himself  and 
a  fellow  Apostle,  and  that  schism  was  broken  up  by  a  separation  of  the  parties  who 
■were  in  a  state  of  schism.  Thus,  Acts  15  :  39  :  “  And  the  contention  was  so  sharp 
between  them,  that  they  departed  asunder  one  from  the  other :  and  so  Barnabas  took 
Mark,  and  sailed  unto  Cyprus.”  This,  again,  is  not  only  Gospel,  but  it  is  common 
sense.  It  is  a  principle  always  advocated  in  every-day  life,  not  only  by  Christians, 
but  by  moralists  of  all  kinds,  except  those  who  advocate  “fighting.” 

(8)  Separation  from  his  particular  schism,  is  schism,  according  to  each 

canonist.  These  ecclesiastical  lawyers,  like  the  Pharisees  of  old,  “  make  the  Word 
of  God  of  none  effect  by. . .  .tradition.’’  They  go  outside  of  the  Bible  to  seek  among 
the  contradictory  opinions  there  found,  such  as  agree  with  the  views  which  they 
desire,  and  adopting  their  authors  as  “  The  Fathers,”  present  these  views  as  “  Cath¬ 
olic  truths,”  believed  “  semper  ubique  et  ab  omnibus .”  “  Men  are  easily  persuaded 

to  believe  what  they  wish.”  Bigotry  is  a  trait  of  human  nature  as  well  in  politics 
and  in  irreligion  as  in  religion.  Like  partisans  of  the  same  political  party,  the  parti¬ 
sans  of  the  same  schism  repeat  to  each  other  the  same  opinions  so  frequently,  that 
at  length  they  cannot  admit  a  doubt  on  the  subject,  and  call  all  men  schismatics 


142 


CHAPTER  XII. 


8th  Section. 

who  do  not  agree  with  the  peculiar  views  of  their  particular  schism  (iii.  Oct.  19, 
1874,  Cath.)  The  Greeks  denounce  the  Church  of  Rome  as  a  schism,  and  claim  the 
title  “  Holv  Orthodox.’'  The  Church  of  Rome  denounces  the  Greeks  on  one  side, 

•t  * 

and  on  the  other,  the  Church  of  England  and  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  all  other  Churches 
as  schisms,  and  claims  the  name  “  Catholic."  The  Pan-Anglican  Church  denounces 
the  Church  of  Rome  on  one  side,  and  all  non-Episcopal  Churches  on  the  other  as 
schisms,  and  arrogates  to  itself  the  title  of  “The  Church."  And  some  non-Episco- 
palians  are  equally  extravagant  in  their  claims,  (ii.  Dec.  31,  1873,  Schism  ;  Jan. 
13,  1875,  Schism  ;  iii.  Oct.  12,  1874,  Pan-Ang.,  and  Mr.  Shattuck  ;  Oct.  19,  Cath.  ; 
Dec.  23,  Low,  xx.  1  ;  xii.  58  ;  xvi.  4,  19.) 

(9)  Combined  Churches.  The  combined  Churches  of  Rome  and  Constanti¬ 
nople  fell  into  violent  schism  through  jealousy  and  ambition,  each  Church  claiming 
the  supremacy.  This  schism  was  broken  by  the  final  separation  in  1052,  when 
Pope  Leo  IX.  excommunicated  Cerularius,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  But 
from  that  day  to  the  present  these  two  Churches  have  stood  in  hostile  antagonism 
to  each  other,  and  thus  both  are  schisms  in  the  Apostolic  sense. 

(10)  The  combined  Churches  of  Rome  and  England  fell  into  violent  schism  on 
the  score  of  supremacy,  Rome  affirming  and  England  denying  the  right  of  the 
Roman  Curia  to  regulate  the  internal  affairs  of  England.  This  schism  was  broken 
by  the  final  separation  under  Queen  Elizabeth  in  1558.  Then  each  became  a  schism, 
standing  in  hostile  antagonism  to  the  other. 

(11)  Church,  of  Rome.  The  Church  of  Rome  has  been  in  schism  for  many 
ag’es,  the  different  “  Orders  "  standing  as  schisms,  jealous  of  each  other;  but  espe¬ 
cially  for  the  last  300  years,  during  the  existence  of  the  Jesuits,  who  were  organized 
to  resist  the  Reformation.  They  have  flourished  and  fallen  and  risen.  The  Order 
has  been  banished  from  nearly  (if  not  quite)  all  Roman  Catholic  countries.  It  has 
been  abolished  by  the  Pope  to  satisfy  the  general  outcry.  It  has  been  revived; 
and  to-day  the  “Black  Pope,”  or  head  of  the  Jesuits,  is  the  “  Power  behind  the 
throne  greater  than  the  throne  itself.” 

Such  is  the  belief  abroad  respecting  this  mysterious  Order,  founded  by  a  soldier 
on  strict  military  principles  of  unquestioned  obedience.  Such  is  the  belief  in  Rome, 
if  we  can  take  the  expressions  of  a  very  intelligent  guide,  in  the  winter  of  1871-2, 
as  an  index  of  Roman  opinions.  This  guide  had  been  three  times  laid  up  with 
wounds  received  while  fighting  under  Garibaldi  against  the  Pope,  and  had  been 
kept  eighteen  months  as  a  prisoner,  fed  on  bread  and  water,  in  the  barracks  of  the 
Vatican,  and  hence  could  not  be  supposed  to  be  very  much  prepossessed  in  favor  of 
the  Pope.  Having,  with  this  guide,  been  engaged  for  several  days  in  visiting  the 
galleries  in  Rome,  I  stopped  before  a  bust  of  the  Pope,  and  said  :  “All  the  portraits 
and  busts  of  the  Pope  indicate  a  benevolent,  kind-hearted  man.  I  suppose  him  to 
be  so.”  He  answered,  emphatically,  “  I  suppose  so  !  Our  difficulties  do  not  come 
from  the  White  Pope,  but  from  the  Black  Pope  and  Antonelli.  He  dare  not  do  as 
he  wishes.  If  he  should  attempt  it,  they  would  soon  [when  he  stopped  speaking 
and  put  his  fingers  to  his  mouth  to  indicate]  give  him  poison  in  his  food.” 

(12)  Church,  of  England.  “  The  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law 
established,”  agrees  with  non-episcopal  Protestant  Churches  only  in  protesting 
against  the  supremacy  claimed  by  the  Roman  Curia.  By  (35  Eliz.,  Chapter  I.);  for 
political  purposes  it  cut  itself  off  from  other  Protestant  churches,  and  thus  became 


CHAPTER  XIL 


143 


12th  Section. 

a  schism.  From  its  origin  it  has  been  in  schism  ;  so  “  comprehensive  ”  as  to  force 
together,  by  Acts  of  Parliament,  several  schisms,  holding  irreconcilably  antago¬ 
nistic  opinions.  Thus : 

(13)  Shimeall,  in  his  “  Romanism  of  Low  Churchism  ”  (p.  492-0),  quotes  from 

“  Cobbett’s  Legacy  to  Parsons.”  Having  spoken  of  the  affairs  of  the  Church  under 
Henry  and  Edward,  he  proceeds  :  “  This  church-making  king  died.  . .  .and  was  suc¬ 
ceeded  by _ Mary,  who  was _ resolved  upon  restoring  the  Catholic  religion. 

The  Common  Prayer  Book  aristocracy. . .  .entered  into  negotiation  with  the  Queen, 
agreeing  to  give  up  their  Common  Prayer  Book  and  their  Protestant  religion. . .  . 
to  bring  back  the  Catholic  religion. . .  .to  punish  persons  for  not  being  Catholics  as 
they  had  punished  them  before  for  not  being  Protestants. . .  .to  confess  themselves 
to  have  been  schismatics.  . .  .to  receive  absolution  from  the  Pope  for  having  rebelled 
against  his  authority. . .  .to  abrogate  as  schismatical  that  very  Common  Prayer 
Book  which  they  had  before  declared,  in  a  preamble  to  an  Act  of  Parliament,  to 
have  been  composed  by  the  1  Aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ’....*  to  the  honor  of  God;’ 
agreeing  to  all  this  if  the  Queen  would  obtain  the  consent  of  the  Pope  and  give  her 
own  consent,  to  suffer  them  to  keep  the  immense  mass  of  property  in  land  and  in 
tythes  which,  during  the  two  preceding  reigns,  they  had  grasped  from  the  Church 
and  the  poor!”  [He  then,  in  proof,  quotes  the  Act  of  Parliament].  “They  were 
now  Catholics  again.” . iii.  Feb.  17,  1875,  Cb. 

(14)  “  Elizabeth,  the  immediate  successor  of  Mary,  was  a  Catholic  herself. . .  . 
She  was  crowned  by  a  Catholic  Bishop. . .  .but  the  Pope  would  not  recognize  her 
legitimacy,  and,  of  course,  would  not  acknowledge  her  right  to  reign.... She 
resolved  to  be  Protestant. . .  .that  her  people  should  be  Protestant  too.  The  very 
first  act  of  Parliament  (1st  Elizabeth,  Chap.  I.)  repealed  the  whole  act  of  which  I 
have  just  quoted  the  memorable  preamble,  except  only  those  parts  of  it  which 
secured  the  plunder  of  the  Church  and  of  the  poor  to  those  who  had  got  possession 
of  it;  and  those  same  men  who  had  so  recently  received  absolution  from  the  Pope 
for  having  acknowledged  the  ecclesiastical  supremacy  to  be  in  the  king,  now  enacted 
that  that  supremacy  had  always  belonged  to  the  king.  . .  .And  they  even  went  so 
far  now  as  to  exact  an  oath  from  every  Englishman — if  the  Queen  chose  to  desire 
it — declaring  a  firm  belief  in  this  supremacy  of  the  Queen  !  The  oath  (in  use  to 
this  day)  begins  :  ‘I,  A.  B.,  do  utterly  declare  and  testify  in  my  conscience,  that 
the  Queen’s  highness  is  the  only  supreme  governor  in  this  realm,  as  well  in  all 
spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  things  or  causes  as  temporal.’  An  oath  wTas  now  to 
come  to  reassert  that  which  these  very  men  had  supplicated  pardon  and  absolution 
from  the  Pope,  and  prayed  for  forgiveness  to  God  for  having  asserted  before  !” 
[P.  492-6.  Then  on  p.  404-5.] 

(15)  “  But  further.  This  first  Act  of  Parliament  (clauses  17,18,  19)  gave  to  the 
Queen  full  authority  to  appoint  a  commission  consisting  of  certain  Bishops  and 
others,  whose  power  extended  over  the  whole  kingdom,  and  over  all  ranks  and 
degrees  of  people.  They  were  empowered  to  have  an  absolute  control  over  the 
opinions  of  all  men,  and,  merely  at  their  own  discretion,  to  inflict  any  punishment 
short  of  death  on  any  person  whatever.  They  might  proceed  legally  or  otherwise 
in  obtaining  evidence  against  parties,  and  upon  mere  heresay,  by  imprisonment  or 
torture  to  extort  an  accusation  against  himself,  his  friend,  his  brother,  his  father, 
upon  pain  of  death.”  (Cobbett’s  Legacy,  pp.  52,  53). 


144 


CHAPTER  XII. 


16th  Section. 

(1G)  (“  1st  Elizabeth,  Chap.  II.). . .  .was  an  act  to  restore  ‘  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.’  For  a  refusal  to  use  this  Prayer  Book  the  above  act  imposed  the  penalty 
of  confiscation,  the  loss  of  ecclesiastical  preferments  and  imprisonment ;  for  the  first 
offense,  six  months  ;  for  the  second,  during  life.  For  speaking  in  derogation  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  or  for  ridiculing  the  new  religion  by  songs,  jests,  plays,  etc.,  it  en¬ 
acted  the  heaviest  fines  and  imprisonment  for  life,  according  to  the  number  of  of¬ 
fences.  These  acts  of  Parliament  were  designed  more  particularly  to  reach  the 
Romanists" 

(17)  “But  now  another  act  (35th  Elizabeth, Chap.  I.)  was  passed,  designed  for 

the  more  especial  benefit  of  Dissenters. . .  .the  notable  *  Act  of  Conformity’  to  ‘the 
Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established’ . . . .  All  persons,  of  whatever  rank 
or  degree,  above  the  age  of  sixteen  years,  who  refused  to  go  to  some  church,  or  chapel, 
or  place  of  common  prayer,  or  who  persuaded  any  other  person  not  to  go,  or  who 
should  be  at  any  conventicle  or  meeting,  wilder  color  or  pretense  of  any  exercise  of 
any  religion  other  than  that  ordered  by  the  State,  then  any  such  person  was  to  be 
committed  to  prison,  there  to  remain  until  he  should  be  ordered  to  come  to  such 
church  or  usual  place  of  common  prayer,  and  there  to  make  an  open  submission  and 
declaration  of  his  conformity  in  the  following  words — ‘  I,  A.  B.,  do  humbly  confess 
and  acknowledge  that  I  have  grievously  offended  God,’  etc.  ...In  case  of  dis¬ 
obedience,  the  offender  was  to  *  abjure  the  realm,’  that  is  to  say,  he  was  to  banish 
himself  for  life,  and  if  he  failed  to  do  this. . .  .or  if  he  returned  into  the  kingdom 
without  her  leave,  such  person. . . .‘  was  to  be  adjudged  a  felon,  and  was  to  suffer 
as  in  cases  of  felony  without  benefit  of  clergy  that  is  to  say,  suffer  the  sentence 
due  to  arson  or  murder;  to  be  hanged  by  the  neck  till  he  icas  dead!"  (Cobbetl’s 
Legacy,  pp.  47-49). . .  .These  horrid  enactments. . .  .were  never  attempted  to  be  miti¬ 
gated  until  James  II. ..  .They  were  very  partially  mitigated  under  William  and 
Mary.  (Cobbett’s  Legacy,  pp.  47-50).” . xx.  8. 

(18)  Now,  it  is  not  surprising  that  all  these  differences  of  opinion  on  matters  of 
conscience  should  fly  apart  under  different  forms  of  “  dissent”  from  the  “Establish¬ 
ment  ’’  as  soon  as  the  compulsion  which  kept  them  together  was  removed,  (iii. 
March  3,  Ex.) 

But  due  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  general  semi -civilized  condition  of 
society,  when  the  Protestant  Church  of  England  was  established.  With  non- 
Episcopalians  the  word  “  Protestant  ”  includes  the  rejection  of  the  Oriental  despot¬ 
ism  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  demands  the  “  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has 
made  us  free.”  The  individual  rights  held  as  “inalienable”  in  a  Republic,  are  due 
to  the  Spirit  of  Christianity.  About  1832  the  French  infidels  secretly  got  up  a 
large  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  as  a  political  document,  and  called  Christ 
“  Le  Grand  Democrat.”  But  Montesquieu,  in  his  “  Spirit  of  Laws,”  says  that  a 
republic  cannot  be  maintained  except  where  there  is  great  virtue  among  the  peo¬ 
ple.  That  did  not  exist  in  those  early  days.  The  people  had  been  accustomed  to  the 
despotic  rule  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  This,  in  the  dark  ages,  had  been  of  great 
service  to  humanity  in  being  a  uniform  despotism  to  control  the  wild  despotism 
of  “  robber  knights  ”  and  kings.  It  may  be  questioned  whether  anything 
less  despotic  than  the  rule  of  Elizabeth  would  have  improved  matters  at 
that  time.  It  was  certainly  an  improvement  upon  the  despotism  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  The  people  having  emerged  from  barbarism,  were  not  yet  able  to  bear 


CHAPTER  XII. 


145 


18th  Section. 

mucli  more  liberty.  A  writer  says,  “  Nations  not  controlled  by  others  enjoy  as  much 
liberty  as  they  deserve,  and  no  more.”  This,  spirit  of  despotism  continued  long 
after  the  age  of  Elizabeth.  The  Prelatists  oppressed  the  Presbyterians  when  they 
had  the  power.  The  Presbyterians  oppressed  the  Prelatists  when  they  gained  the 
power  under  Cromwell.  Again  the  Prelatists  oppressed  the  Puritans  when  they 
regained  power  on  the  Restoration.  Then  as  to  America.  A  historical  writer, 
whose  name  is  forgotten,  says,  that  many  have  expressed  surprise  that  the  Puritans, 
flying  from  persecution  to  enjoy  liberty  of  conscience,  should  themselves  in  turn 
become  persecutors.  But  he  says  :  “  They  came  here,  not  for  liberty,  but  for  truth, 
as  they  understood  it  ;  and  they  were  determined  to  have  nothing  but  ‘  truth.’  ” 

xiii.  10. 

The  same  spirit  prevailed  on  the  continent  of  Europe ;  so  that  in  the  present 
advanced  condition  of  civilization  and  intelligence  resulting  from  the  spirit  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  we  may  use  such  statements  as  the  above  as  landmarks,  to  show  how  far 
we  have  advanced,  rather  than  proof  in  the  present  case,  that  this  description  of  the 
“  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established  ”  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth, 
represents  that  Church  as  it  now  exists,  except  as  far  as  we  can  now  trace  the 
same  principles  as  prevailed  then.  (iii.  Feb.  17,  March  10  ;  March  17,  1875;  Ch. 
Eng.  ;  xi,  1. 

(19)  The  grand  question  in  England  at  that  time,  as  at  the  present  time  in  Eng¬ 
land  and  in  Germany,  was  the  political  independence  of  the  country  from  the  con¬ 
trol  of  the  Roman  Curia,  which  then,  as  now,  claimed  the  right  to  absolve  subjects 
from  their  allegiance  to  their  sovereign.  To  secure  this  independence,  the  State 
took  control  of  the  Church,  and  endeavored  to  make  the  Church  so  “comprehen¬ 
sive  ”  as  to  gain  as  many  political  adherents  as  possible.  Hence  the  XXXIX 
Articles  were  Protestant,  including  nothing  that  would  drive  off  either  Lutherans 
or  Calvinists.  The  services  (Janus-like)  looked  in  opposite  directions  ;  on  one  side 
Protestant,  and  on  the  other  Romish.  Consequently  there  have  always  been  two 
legalized  factions  or  schisms  striving  for  the  mastery.  Sometimes  one  faction, 
sometimes  the  other  has  had  the  ascendancy. 

(20)  In  the  early  part  of  this  century  the  Protestants  had  the  control.  Of  late 
years  the  Romanists  or  Ritualists,  or  Anglo-Catholics  as  they  are  now  called,  have 
been  rapidly  gaining  ground.  The  Protestants  complain  that  the  Ritualists  are 
perverting  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.  But  the  above  historical  facts  show  that 
they  make  the  same  mistake  that  I  did  respecting  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  the  remarks  of 
Chief  Justice  Coleridge  show  that  in  his  opinion  the  Ritualists  have  a  status  in 
the  Church  of  England  which  cannot  be  altered  without-  an  Act  of  Parliament,  (xi. 
1 ;  i.  Nov.  18,  1874,  St.  John’s  ;  iii.  Nov.  25,  1874,  Sacerdotal.) 

(21)  Such  Acts  of  Parliament  for  or  against  Ritualism  may  be  passed  on  purely 
political  grounds.  The  present  celebrated  “  Gladstone  Controversy  ”  has  no  re¬ 
gard  to  doctrine  except  as  it  affects  the  question,  whether  the  Roman  Curia  or  Par¬ 
liament  shall  be  supreme  in  England.  The  same  question  now  as  formerly  is 
deeply  agitating  Germany. 

(22)  This  control,  and  the  character  of  Parliament  which  now  controls,  are 
described  (iii.  Aug.  27  and  Nov.  11,  1874,  and  Feb.  17,  1875,  and  March  10,  1875, 
Ch.;  March  30,  Rit.) 

(23)  Hence  the  Church  of  England,  notwithstanding  the  immense  amount  of 


146 


CHAPTER  XII. 


23d  Section. 

good  that  it  lias  done  and  is  doing  for  the  cause  of  Christianity  and  of  Protestanism, 
is  nevertheless  controlled  for  political  purposes,  and  all  the  Evangelical  Protestant¬ 
ism  that  it  contains  is  derived  from  the  religious  character  of  the  people  of  England 
at  large,  “  Dissenters  ”  as  well  as  people  of  the  Establishment.”  Thus,  Parlia¬ 
ment  represents  the  people  of  England  at  large.  And  Parliament  practically  elects 
the  Prime  Minister,  and  he  practically  determines  who  shall  be  Bishop,  by  sending 
to  the  Dean  and  Chapter  his  “  Conge  d’elire”  or  “  permission  to  elect  ”  the  “  Bishop 
designate,”  with  the  alternative  of  a  groemunireP  if  they  refuse,  by  which  they  will 
be  displaced  and  punished  very  severely  for  contumacy. 

(24)  Canonists  of  this  political  Church  of  England,  like  all  other  politicians, 
claim  that  they  are  exclusively  right.  For  political  purposes  this  Church  separates 
herself  from  non-Episcopal  Churches,  and  is  therefore  a  schism.  The  above  extracts 
and  others  in  Chapter  III.,  show  that  she  is  in  a  chronic  state  of  internal  schism, 
(iii.  Dec.  13,  1873).  But  there  are  other  considerations.  From  personal  observa¬ 
tion  I  am  convinced  that  many  of  the  English  consider  loyalty  to  the  sovereign  and 
loyalty  to  “  The  Church  ”  to  be  inseparable,  and  doubt  the  political  loyalty  of  those 
who  “  dissent”  from  the  Establishment,  and  suspect  them  of  being  political  Revolu¬ 
tionists.  Tiiis  is  not  without  reason.  The  Dissenters  overthrew  the  monarch  in 
the  time  of  Cromwell,  and  the  Puritans  came  to  this  country  to  enjoy  “  a  Church 
without  a  Bishop,  and  a  government  without  a  King.”  A  High-Church  Republican 
appears  to  be  a  logical  contradiction,  since  all  their  inferences  to  support  the  dogma 
of  Apostolic  Succession  will  not  weigh  against  the  single  direct  order,  “  Fear  God, 
and  honor  the  King.”  If  American  Higli-Churchmen  by  argument  prove  that  a 
government  does  not  necessarily  require  a  King,  so  can  we  prove  that  a  Church 
does  not  necessarily  require  a  Bishop.  That  this  may  not  be  misunderstood,  I  ex¬ 
press  the  opinion  that  it  is  of  vast  importance  for  the  good  of  the  human  race,  that 
the  Republican  Monarchy  of  Great  Britain  and  the  Monarchical  Republic  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  Churches  in  these  two  countries,  should  always  be  on  friend¬ 
ly  terms.  I  accept  as  a  high  compliment,  the  remark  of  the  London  Times  respect¬ 
ing  this  country — “  A  nation  of  soldiers  without  an  army  ;  order  without  a  police  ; 
wealth,  luxury,  refinement,  without  an  aristocracy.”  On  the  other  side,  after  hav¬ 
ing  in  1837-8  spent  several  months,  traveling  under  the  constant  control  of  the 
police,  and  constantly  under  the  eyes  of  government  spies  in  the  form  of  Valets  de 
Place  among  the  despotic  monarchies  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  (much  more 
liberal  at  present),  I  felt  an  expansion  on  reaching  England,  from  the  confidence 
that  under  the  British  flag  my  personal  independence  was  as  secure  as  under  my 
own  flag.  Aud  as  to  the  people,  I  had  strong  prejudices  until  I  met  them  at  home, 
and  in  a  few  months  my  prejudices  changed  to  admiration,  (iii.  June  4,  1874, 
Prayer  Book  ;  June  11,  Compromise  ;  Oct.  12,  Mr.  S.  ;  Oct.  20,  Rev.  Dr.;  Feb.  18, 
1875,  Ch.  xvi.  ii.) 

THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  OF  THE  U.  S.  A. 

(25)  This  is  legally  a  schism  cut  off  from  non-Episcopal  Protestant  Churches,  and 
in  schism  ;  so  “comprehensive”  as  to  “tolerate  ”  all  the  schisms  of  the  Church  of 
England  (xii.  12-24),  and  like  that  only  theoretically  Protestant  in  refusing  sub¬ 
mission  to  the  Roman  Curia.  This  is  proved  by  the  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Com¬ 
mon  Prayer,  “  This  Church  is  far  from  intending  to  depart  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 


CHAPTER  XU. 


147 


25th  Section. 

land  in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine,  discipline,  or  worship,  or  further  than  local 
circumstances  may  require.”,  And  the  Journals  of  1785  and  1786  (vi.)  show  that 
upon  this  basis,  the  Episcopate  of  the  P.  E.  C.  was  obtained  from  the  Church  of 
England,  (iii.  Dec.  16,  1874,  Divided  ;  Feb.  8,  1875,  Jag.  ;  Feb.  10,  De  Koven  ; 
Jag.  ;  Log.  ;  Feb.  11,  De  K.  ;  Feb.  18,  Log.  ;  Feb.  24,  Part.) 

(26)  Perry’s  Hand-book  of  the  General  Conventions  (p.  118)  quotes  the  opinion 
expressed  by  both  Houses  of  the  General  Convention  in  1814:  “It  would  be  con¬ 
trary  to  fact,  were  any  one  to  infer  that  the  discipline  exercised  in  this  Church,  or 
that  any  proceedings  therein,  are  at  all  dependent  on  the  will  of  the  civil  or  of  the 
ecclesiastical  authority  of  any  foreign  country.”  But  these  are  mere  “  obiter  dicta” 
and  would  have  no  force  in  a  court  of  law.  The  common  law  of  England  as  it 
stood  at  the  time  of  our  Revolution,  at  this  time  governs  the  legal  decisions  in  this 
country.  And  by  analogy,  the  legal  status  of  parties  in  the  Church  of  England  as 
they  stood  at  the  time  the  Episcopate  was  obtained  is  now  the  law  for  the  P.  E.  C. 
This  opinion  has  been  formed  since  (ii.  Dec.  16,  1874.  B.  A.)  At  that  time  I  sup¬ 
posed  that  the  Protestantism  prevailing  in  my  youth  wra3  the  only  normal  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  that  Ritualists  were  perverting  the  doctrines  of  the  P.  E.  C. 
But  the  above  facts  prove  that  Ritualists  have  by  law  the  same  rights  as  Protest¬ 
ants .  . xi.  1. 

(27)  The  claim  of  independence  as  expressed  in  1814  (xii.  26)  was  forced  upon  the 
P.  E.  C.  at  the  time  of  our  Revolution,  when  that  Church  was  denounced  by  the 
Americans,  for  the  same  reason  that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  now  denounced  by 
Gladstone.  Under  this  pressure,  and  as  I  believe,  by  a  nobler  and  more  Christian 
impulse,  the  P.  E.  C.,  although  theoretically  a  schism  and  in  schism,  the  same  as 
the  Church  of  England,  was  practically  neither  a  schism  nor  in  schism.  This  is 
proved  by  the  two  following  historical  statements. 

In  “  Brodhead’s  History  of  the  State  of  New  York  ”  (p.  119)  he  shows  the  similarity 
between  the  “  Reformed  Protestant  Dutch  Church,”  and  the  “  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,”  and  says,  “  Social  circumstances  always  bound  them  closely  together.;  and 
they  now  differ  in  scarcely  an  important  point,  save  the  original  disagreement  re¬ 
specting  prelatic  superiority.”  Then  this  note  :  “  The  Reformed  Dutch  Church  was 
the  Mother  Church  in  this  State  ;  and  a  spirit  of  liberal  courtesy  early  prevailed 
between  its  ministers  and  those  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  The  Reverend  Mr.  Vesey, 
the  first  Rector  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  city  of  New  York,  was  inducted  into  of¬ 
fice  in  Dec.,  1697,  in  the  Dutch  Church  in  Garden  Street.  On  that  occasion,  two 
Dutch  clergymen,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Selyns,  the  pastor  of  the  church,  and  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Nucella,  of  Kingston,  assisted  in  the  services.  Mr.  Vesey  afterwards  officiated  for 
some  time  in  the  Garden  Street  Church,  alternately  with  the  Dutch  clergjmian .  until 
the  building  of  Trinity  Church  was  completed.  When  the  Middle  Dutch  Church 
was  desecrated  by  the  British  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  vestry  of  Trinity 
Church  passed  the  following  resolution  in  1779:  ‘It  being  represented  that  the 
old  Dutch  Church  is  now  used  as  a  hospital  for  his  Majesty’s  troops,  this  corpora¬ 
tion,  impressed  with  a  grateful  remembrance  of  the  former  kindness  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  this  ancient  church,  do  offer  them  the  use  of  St.  George’s  Church  to  the  con¬ 
gregation  for  celebrating  Divine  Worship.’  The  courteous  offer  was  frankly  ac¬ 
cepted.” . xvi.  1. 

(28)  Again  :  The  Weekly  Monitor  of  June  14,  1700,  has  the  following  account  in 


148 


CHAPTER  XII. 


28th.  Section. 

which  the  “  Rev.  Dr.  Lynn  ”  is  the  Rev.  Wm.  Lynn,  D.D.,  a  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  minister  in  New  York.  Viz.:  “  Wednesday  ^ifternoon  were  interred  in 
Trinity  churchyard,  the  remains  of  the  Hon.  Theodoric  Bland,  Esq.  The  Hon. 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  and  the  Society  of  the  Cincinnati,  together  with 
a  great  number  of  respectable  citizens,  attended  the  funeral.  The  Hon.  Richard  H. 
Lee,  John  Walker,  Isaac  Coles,  Samuel  Griffin,  Richard  B.  Lee,  James  Madison, 
Josiah  Barker,  and  Thomas  T.  Tucker,  Esquires,  supported  the  pall.  After  the 
corpse  was  carried  into  the  Church,  his  Reverence  the  Bishop  (Provost)  read 
prayers,  after  which  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lynn  delivered  a  most  excellent  sermon,  pecu¬ 
liarly  adapted  to  the  occasion.”  From  the  names  of  the  pall-bearers,  this  appears 
to  have  been  an  important  occasion,  and  a  Dutch  minister  joining  with  the  Bishop 
in  the  services  in  Trinity,  proves  that  at  that  date  the  P.  E.  C.  was  not  a  schism. 
And  this  agrees  with  our  family  tradition,  (xvi.  1.)  Also  “  Perry’s  Hand-book  of 
the  General  Conventions,”  p.  78-9,  shows  that  in  1792  an  effort  was  made  to  form 
a  j  unction  with  the  Methodist  Church. 

(29)  Personal  Knowledge  (xvi.  1).  To  show  my  opportunities  of  knowing 
many  things  related  in  this  work,  I  state  the  following  :  I  entered  Columbia  Col¬ 
lege,  New  York,  in  1820,  and  graduated  in  1824.  Bishop  Hobart  was  then  Bishop 
of  New  York,  and  a  Trustee  of  Col.  Coll.,  and  had  two  sons  in  our  class  (xii.  30-32). 
I  was  one  of  the  founders  of  St.  John’s  Church  in  Passaic,  and  delegate  to  the  Dio¬ 
cesan  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  from  1860  to  1871  (xii.  50,  51).  In  1863,  as  an 
avowed  Low-Churchman,  I  was  appointed  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance; 
and,  believing  that  dissatisfaction  was  the  cause  of  our  empty  treasury,  devoted  the 
whole  year  to  writing  and  receiving  letters  and  sending  out  printed  circulars,  in 
order  to  get  our  legislation  so  improved  as  to  remove  dissatisfaction.  In  this  way 
I  became  acquainted  with  the  characteristics  of  many  leading  men  of  both  parties. 

The  “Journal  ”  of  1864,  p.  28,  has  this  report :  “  The  Committee  beg  leave  to  state 
that  it  is  the  first  time  in  many  years,  that  the  Bishop’s  salary  [of  $4,000]  has  been 
paid  up  in  full,  and  a  surplus  over. — Geo.  P.  Schetky,  Walter  Rutherfurd,  Auditing 
Committee.”  The  Bishop’s  salary  was  then  raised  to  $5,000;  then  to  $6,000.  In 
1868,  in  consequence  of  the  action  of  the  General  Convention,  I  resigned,  by  letter 
to  Bishop  Odenlieimer,  and  gave  my  reasons,  but  remained  a  silent  member  of  the 
Convention  in  1869  to  1871.  The  “  Journal  ”  of  1869,  p.  40,  reports  :  “  On  motion  of 
Mr.  J.  C.  Garth waite,  Resolved ,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  are  justly  due, 
and  are  hereby  tendered  to  Mr.  Benjamin  Aycrigg,  for  the  efficient  and  satisfactory 
manner  in  which  he,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance,  has  for  many 
years  discharged  the  duties  of  that  position,  and  that  we  deeply  regret  his  resigna¬ 
tion  of  it  ”  (vii.  4  ;  xii.  45,  49,  50,  51).  I  was  actively  associated  with  the  Old 
Evangelical  societies,  until  the  vote  of  their  majority  in  1869  proved  that  it  was 
vox  et  prczterea  nihil  (xii.  46  to  48),  but  still  acted  in  the  diocese  (49  to  51).  On  Oct. 
30,  1873,  I  retired  from  the  P.  E.  C.  (iv.  8;  xii.  51).  On  Nov.  12,  1873,  I  became 
acquainted  with  Bishop  Cummins,  and  since  that  date  have  made  the  affairs  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  my  exclusive  business  (ix.  4). 

(30)  Personal  Recollections  in  New  York.  In  1820,  Trinity  Church  loaned 
to  the  Lutherans  the  use  of  St.  Taul’s  Church  for  the  ter-centennial  of  the  Lutheran 
Reformation.  This  was  not  exclusiveness. 

(31)  In  1824  and  previously.  Trinity  Church  loaned  to  Columbia  College  the  use 


CHAPTER  XII. 


149 


31st  Section. 

of  Trinity  for  Commencement.  The  chancel  was  entirely  staged  over,  and  we  had 
no  thought  that  we  were  walking  over  the  “  altar  ”  of  the  “  real  presence.” 

(32)  In  1825  Trinity  Church  loaned  to  Columbia  College  the  use  of  St.  John’s 
Church  for  Commencement.  Alexander,  in  his  History  of  Princeton  College,  says 
that  Bishop  Hobart  went  to  England  in  1823,  and  returned  in  1825.  This  change 
from  Trinity  to  St.  John’s  must,  therefore,  have  occurred  about  the  time  of  his 
return.  It  was  commonly  reported  that  he  went  to  England  Low-Church,  and 
returned  High-Churcli.  I  heard  him  frequently  in  St.  John’s  Church,  and  although 
his  voluminous  writings  may  show  this  change,  I  have  no  recollection  of  anything 
which  at  that  time  contradicted  the  impressions  in  my  younger  days — that  the  P. 
E.  C.  differed  from  non-episcopal  churches  in  no  important  particular,  except  that 
about  1825-6,  much  excitement  was  caused  by  the  statement  that  the  vestry  of 
Trinity  proposed  to  put  up  statues  of  the  Saints  inside  the  churches,  and  that 
threats  were  made  that  they  would  be  pulled  down  by  a  mob  of  the  parishioners. 
The  statement  itself  may  have  been  idle  gossip,  or  may  have  been  a  feeler,  without 
taking  official  action.  Also,  one  of  the  class  of  1821,  and  a  French  Catholic,  once 
said  to  me  :  “  You  Episcopalians  do  not  know  the  real  doctrines  of  your  Church. 
They  are  nearly  the  same  as  ours.”  I  then  supposed  that  he  was  very  much  mis¬ 
taken.  Now  I  do  not. 

(33)  Puseyism  first  attracted  my  attention,  as  far  as  I  remember,  about  1844. 
I  was  then  surprised  by  the  remark  of  Bishop  Benjamin  Onderdonk,  in  St.  John’s 
Church,  that  “  The  Absolution  in  the  service  does  not  simply  signify  that  such 
absolution  has  been  promised  to  the  penitent,  but  these  words  possess  pecu¬ 
liar  efficacy  on  being  pronounced  by  a  regularly  authorized  clergyman.”  Edie's 
Ecclesiastical  Cyclopedia  says  that  the  Oxford  Tracts  began  to  appear  in  1833; 
that  for  two  years  they  attracted  little  attention.  But  by  1852,  200  clergymen,  and 
as  many  laymen,  had  publicly  abjured  Protestantism. 

(34)  Puseyism  rapidly  advanced  in  St.  John’s  Church,  and  about  1845  I  heard 
from  Dr.  Higbee  in  this  church  the  most  violent  sectarian  sermon  that  I  have  ever 
heard  from  an  educated  man  against  “  Sectarianism.”  It  appeared  from  his  excited 
manner  that  he  was  determined  to  “  fight  ”  for  his  position.  While  leaving  the 
church,  I  remarked  to  Dr.  Hunter,  our  family  physician,  at  my  side,  “  I  cannot 
stand  this  Puseyism  and  priest-craft.  If  this  continue,  I  shall  go  elsewhere.” 
“  No !  ”  said  he.  “  If  such  as  you  and  I  leave,  they  will  soon  run  into  the  .Church  of 
Rome.”  And  about  this  time,  during  the  excitement  respecting  the  trial  of  Bishop 
Onderdonk  for  immorality,  even  the  moderate  and  cautious  Dr.  Berrian,  the  Rector 
of  Trinity,  in  referring  to  the  excitement  among  the  laity,  said  in  substance  :  “  You 
put  your  bodies  into  the  hands  of  the  physician,  and  you  do  not  interfere  with  him, 
for  you  know  nothing  about  it.  And  you  put  your  purses  into  the  hands  of  tbe 
lawyer,  and  you  do  not  interfere  with  him,  for  you  know  nothing  about  it,”  and 
then  left  us  to  draw  our  own  conclusions,  (xvi.  21). 

(35)  About  1845,  during  the  suspension  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  I  was  present  as 
a  spectator,  in  the  gallery  at  the  Diocesan  Convention  in  St.  John’s  Church,  when 
the  question  of  electing  a  Provisional  Bishop  was  brought  up.  The  High  Church¬ 
men  were  opposed  to  it,  and,  if  I  remember  correctly,  wished  to  have  Bishop  On¬ 
derdonk  reinstated.  Dr.  Tvng  was  addressing  the  Chair,  when  several  of  the 
Trinity  people  tried  to  embarrass  him.  But  putting  out  his  hand  in  that  direction 


150 


CHAPTER  XII. 


35tli  Section 

as  if  driving  them  away,  he  continued :  “  The  diocese  is  now  essentially  vacant, 
and  we  might  immediately  proceed  to  elect  another  Bishop !  ” — when  he  stopped 
short,  and  looking  down  into  the  pew  immediately  before  him,  drew  all  dyes  upon 
Dr.  Higbee,  who  had  screwed  himself  around  and  was  grinning  up  at  Dr.  Tyng, 
when  Dr.  Tyng  with  a  sweep  of  his  hand  past  Dr.  Higbee’s  face,  concluded  his  re¬ 
mark  :  “  Even  the  reverend  gentleman  who  is  now  smiling  in  my  face !  ”  This 

created  wonderful  excitement,  and  was  in  after  years  referred  to  by  Dr.  Higbee  as 
a  “  nomination.”  While  walking  from  this  Convention,  my  companion  remarked  : 
“  I  infer  that  you  think  there  is  a  Rome  ward  tendency  in  our  Church  ?”  I  an¬ 
swered,  “  Not  only  so,  but  I  believe  that  there  are  Romanists  now  occupying  our 
pulpits,  not  only  in  feeling,  but  in  fact,  and  known  to  be  such  by  the  Romish  Bish¬ 
ops.”  He  thought  my  opinion  extravagant.  But  within  less  than  a  year,  my 
words  were  proved  to  have  been  literally  true,  if  w’e  may  believe  charges  that  were 
publicly  made,  and  never  denied,  as  far  as  I  know.  I  had  private  information  of 
facts  from  which  I  drew  my  conclusion . xiii.  19. 

(36,  37)  Substitute  (xvi.  30.) 

(38,  39)  In  1846,  the  official  decision  of  Rev.  Dr.  Wain wriglit  showed  that  he 
practically  admitted  that  the  dogma  of  Apostolic  Succession  was  theoi'etical.  (xvi. 
26,  29,  30).  But  the  Rev.  Dr.  Sparrow,  Dean  of  the  Alexandria  Theological  Semi¬ 
nary  (and  my  fellow  student  in  Col.  Coll.)  calls  this  dogma  the  “  Tap  Booc  of  sac- 
rameutarianism.”  It  has  grown  to  a  large  tree  since  1846,  and  now  overshadows 
the  P.  E.  C.  (iii.  Nov.  3, 1874,  Changes  ;  Nov.  11,  The  Methodist).  As  to  the  changes 
see  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Tyng,  Sr.,  and  Bishop  Lee  of  Delaware,  (xx.  7). 

(40)  In  1867  we  have  the  combined  action  of  the  Old  Evangelicals  showing 
that  they  did  not  regard  the  P.  E.  C.  a  schism  cut  off  from  communion  with  the 
Protestant  world  (xi.  10-12;  xv.  1-12). 

(41)  In  1868,  the  trial  of  the  Rev.  J.  P.  Hubbard,  of  Westerly  Rhode  Island,  for 

exchanging  pulpits  with  Rev.  Mr.  Denison,  of  the  Baptist  Church,  ended  in  failure, 
because  the  P.  E.  C.  was  not  a  schism.  On  this  point  the  Protestant  Churchman 
of  July  23,  1868,  says :  “  That  the  title  of  the  Canon  does  not  include  such  a  case 

is  manifest, ...  .because  he  is  known  by  the  Canon  . .  .as  ‘  a  minister  of  another 
denomination,’  then  plainly  he  cannot  be  a  ‘person  not  a  minister  and  the  Canon 
cannot  intend. ..  .to  exclude  him....  It  wTas  for  a  far  different  purpose. ..  .The 
penalty  until  1832. . .  .wras  a  general  publication  in  secular  papers  of  the  name  of 
the  offender,  with  his  crime. . .  .The  man  who  preached  was  the  criminal.  . .  .This 
was  the  original,  and  until  1832  the  general  interpretation.  . .  .But  since  that  time 
the  attempt  has  been  made  furtively  and  now  openly  to  engraft  an  entirely  differ¬ 
ent  construction. ..  .In  the  growth  of  Sacerdotalism.  ..  .it  is  now  considered  safe 
to  attack  in  such  a  trial  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  the  ministry. . .  .It  goes  down  to 
the  very  depths  of  Protestanism.  This  is  admitted  by  one  of  the  advocates  of  the 
procedure.’’  (ii.  June  25,  1S74,  Chr.  Union).  That  is,  as  asserted  by  Bishops  Onder- 
donk  and  Croes  (xx.  6),  this  Canon  was  intended  to  keep  out  imposters,  and  not 
clergymen  in  good  standing  in  other  Churches,  as  when  the  minister  of  the  Dutch 
Church  joined  with  the  Bishop  (xii.  28). 

(42)  This  trial  having  failed  to  prove  that  the  P.  E.  C.  was  a  schism,  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Convention  a  few  weeks  later  determined  to  make  it  a  schism  by  the  Excluding 
Canon  (xii.  59  ;  iii.  Jan.  27,  1875,  Isolation  ;  xx.  6). 


CHAPTER  XII. 


151 


43d  Section. 

(43)  “  Fight  it  out  within  the  Church.”  The  R.  E.  C.,  and  especially  Bishop 
Cummins,  have  been  charged  with  schism  for  having-  separated  from  the  P.  E.  C. 
and  for  having  abandoned  this  belligerent  attitude  (xii.  10.)  Bishop  Talbot  uses 
very  strong  language  to  this  effect  (ii.  July  15,  1874).  Other  Bishops  do  the  same 
in  gentle  terms,  viz. :  Bishop  Howe  (ii.  June  10,  1874)  ;  Bishop  Robertson  (ii.  June 
11,  1874) ;  and  Bishop  Lee  of  Iowa  (ii.  June  13,  1874.) 

(44)  Such  action  may  be  justifiable,  as  long  as  there  is  a  prospect  of  success,  but 
it  becomes  factious  and  scliismatical  when  success  is  hopeless.  Before  quoting  the 
remarks  of  others  on  this  point,  I  state  the  following  personal  recollections  to  prove 
that  the  cause  of  the  Evangelicals  has  been  constantly  sinking. 

(45)  In  1808,  the  P.  E.  C.  went  positively  into  schism  by  passing  the  Excluding 
Canon  (xii.  59).  For  this  and  similar  reasons,  I  refused  to  hold  an  office  in  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey  (xii.  29).  For  this  and  similar  reasons,  a  student  against  my 
advice  withdrew  from  being  a  Candidate  for  Orders.  For  this  and  similar  reasons, 
the  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  against  my  wish,  withdrew  from  the  ministry  of  the 
P.  E.  C.  (vii.  2).  And  this  through  a  chain  of  consequences,  brought  in  a  High- 
Church  clergymen,  which  led  to  the  results  stated  (xii.  51).  (iii.  May  20,  1874, 
Can.  ;  Sept.  10,  only  one  ;  Oct.  19,  Bd. ;  Nov.  3,  Pastoral  2d  ;  Feb.  9,  1875 ;  Feb.  18, 
and  20,  Ch. ;  Feb.  20,  Clergy  ;  Ch.  ;  Feb.  27,  Growth  ;  Mar.  3,  Dio.) 

(46)  In  1867,  at  a  meeting  of  Evangelicals  in  New  York,  I  objected  strongly  to 
the  tone  of  a  resolution ;  that  was  passed  nevertheless  ;  preliminary  to  the  Phila¬ 
delphia  meetings,  on  the  ground,  that  it  was  an  implied  threat  that  we  would  se¬ 
cede  immediately,  unless  the  changes  in  the  Prayer  Book  should  be  made  as  we 
demanded.  Some  of  the  speeches  were  most  violent. 

(47)  The  Chicago  Conference  of  1869  decided  unanimously  what  kind  of  changes 
the  Evangelicals  desired  in  the  Prayer  Book  (xi.  15).  I  proposed  to  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  that  we  should  immediately  appoint  a  committee 
of  laymen  to  bring  this  question  before  every  parish  in  the  Church,  and  agitate 
for  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  Diocesan  Conventions  and  to  the  General  Con¬ 
vention,  who  would  favor  such  changes.  He  said  that  it  would  be  premature,  since 
the  whole  matter  was  in  the  hands  of  a  committee  of  clergymen  who  would  report 
the  changes  desired  at  the  meeting  in  Philadelphia  in  the  fall. 

(48)  In  the  fall  of  1869,  I  went  to  Philadelphia  to  hear  this  report,  but  in  its 
place,  heard  the  Committee  offer  the  following  resolution  :  “  That  the  Committee 
be  dissolved,”  and  this  was  carried  nem.  con.  I  then  offered  the  resolution,  “  That 
we  do  here  and  now  determine  what  changes  we  desire  in  the  Prayer  Book.”  This 
created  great  confusion,  as  if  a  bomb-shell  had  fallen  into  the  camp.  Then  there 
was  an  amendment,  then  an  amendment  to  the  amendment  ;  then  a  substitute  on 
top  of  the  amendment  to  the  amendment,  and  this  was  carried  by  a  large  ma¬ 
jority,  to  refer  the  whole  question  to  the  Bishops  ! ! 

“ Par turiunt  montes,  nascetur  ridiculus  nuts” 

This  is  the  last  meeting  of  the  kind  that  I  attended,  although  I  remained  in  the 
P.  E.  C.  until  Oct.  80, 1873 . ix.  9  ;  iv.  8  ;  ii.  Jan.  21,  1874,  English. 

(49)  Again  :  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Missionary  Society  of  New  Jersey  kept 
aloof  from  the  general  diocesan  organizations  which  were  under  the  control  of  the 
High  Church  majority,  and  collecting  contributions  from  Low  Churchmen,  used 
this  money  to  educate  Low  Church  young  men  for  the  ministry,  and  to  build  up 


152  CHAPTER  XII. 

4 

49th.  Section. 

or  assist  Low  Church  parishes.  At  the  meeting  of  this  P.  E.  M.  S.  in  Trenton, 
1871,  the  day  before  the  Diocesan  Convention,  a  committee  of  three  laymen,  includ¬ 
ing  myself,  -was  appointed  to  nominate  officers  and  to  select  candidates  for  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Convention.  We  reported  in  favor  of  retaining  the  existing  officers  of  the  P. 
E.  M.  S.  and  of  selecting  Rev.  S.  A.  Clark  and  Hon.  Cortlandt  Parker  as  delegates 
to  the  General  Convention.  The  last  two  nominations  were  confirmed,  but  the  offi¬ 
cers  of  the  P.  E.  M.  S.  refused  to  serve  another  year,  and  proposed  that  we  should 
disband,  upon  the  ground  that  results  proved  that  we  were  only  feeders  for  the 
High  Churchmen.  Others  thought  differently,  and  they  took  the  offices.  We  now 
hear  from  Rev.  G.  A.  Redles  (iii.  March  3,  1875,  Low),  that  of  sixteen  parishes  thus 
assisted  by  the  P.  E.  M.  S.  only  one  remains  Low  Church.  And  a  statement  in 
some  newspaper  about  a  year  ago,  showed  about  the  same  condition  respecting  the 
ministers  educated  as  Low  Churchmen. 

(49^)  The  nomination  of  candidates  for  delegates  to  the  General  Convention 
was  to  meet  the  “  Cumulative  system  ”  of  voting  introduced  by  Rev.  Dr.  Garrison 
(High  Church),  in  1870  :  “  In  all  elections  by  ballot,  each  voter  shall  be  entitled 
to  as  many  votes  as  there  are  persons  to  be  elected ;  which  votes  he  may  cast,  all 
for  one  name,  or  may  divide  them  among  any  number  not  exceeding  the  whole 
number  to  be  voted  for;  and  any  ticket  having  such  excess  shall  be  rejected.” 
(“Journal”  of  1870,  pp.  34,  41,  42).  The  object  was  to  allow  the  Low  Church  mi¬ 
nority  to  be  represented.  In  1871  a  clergyman  denounced  this  Canon  and  moved 
its  abolition  in  a  very  excited  manner.  After  some  discussion,  the  Rev.  J.  N.  Stans- 
bury  (High  Church)  moved  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table.  The  “ayes!” 
appeared  to  be  unanimous  by  the  loud  sound.  Then  about  half  a  dozen  “  noes  !  ” 
broke  the  stillness.  Then  in  place  of  voting  by  the  new  Canon,  one  member  pro¬ 
posed  that  we  vote  a  single  ticket  (to  meet  the  requirement  of  the  Constitution, 
Art.  xi.,  “  by  ballot.”)  Another  read  off  the  names  that  he  proposed  to  vote  for  cler¬ 
ical  representatives  in  the  General  Convention,  with  three  High  Churchmen  and 
our  choice,  “  Rev.  S.  A.  Clark.”  No  one  else  desiring  to  vote,  the  vote  was  declared 
to  be  unanimous.  Then  the  same  thing  was  done  for  the  lay  delegates,  reading 
off  three  High  Churchmen  and  our  choice,  “  Cortlandt  Parker1”  And  the  “  Jour¬ 
nal  ”  of  the  Gen.  Con.  of  1874  contains  again  the  names  of  “  Rev.  S.  A.  Clark  ”  and 
“  Cortlandt  Parker,”  both  Low  Churchmen  of  unusual  influence,  and  practically  put  v 
there  by  the  High  Church  majority  to  speak  and  vote  against  themselves,  for  the 
High  Churchmen  can  put  them  out  if  they  please.  Hence  the  remarks  (iii.  Oct.  29, 

1874,  Dr.  Garrison;  vii.  4 ;  xiii.  8;  xiv.  4). 

(50)  The  following  is  one  of  the  cases  referred  to  by  Mr.  Redles  (iii.  March  3, 

1875,  Low),  and  is  copied  from  one  of  the  printed  circulars  :  “  Policy  of  St.  John’s 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Passaic,  N.  J. — The  Rector  of  the  parish  (since  October 
1,  1860)  having  resigned  his  rectorship  of  the  parish,  said  resignation  to  take  effect 
on  the  first  Sunday  in  June,  the  Vestry  prepared  and  signed  the  following  preamble 
and  resolution,  which  were  submitted  to  the  congregation  at  the  Annual  Parish 
Meeting  for  the  election  of  Church  officers,  on  Easter  Monday,  April  13,  1868,  and 
were,  on  motion,  unanimously  endorsed  :  Whereas,  The  nucleus  of  this  parish  of 
St.  John’s  Church, in  Passaic,  N.  J.,  was  collected  under  the  auspices  of  the  Low 
Church  Protestant  Episcopal  Missionary  Society  of  New  Jersey  ;  and  the  lay  mem¬ 
bers  composing  said  parish  have  always  been  Low  Churchmen;  and  as  such,  the 


CHAPTER  XII. 


153 


50th  Section. 

parish  in  its  infancy,  and  at  the  request  of  the  Vestry,  received  $600  from  said  soci¬ 
ety;  and  as  such,  has  accumulated  a  valuable  Church  property  by  the  contributions 
and  exertions  of  those  who  would  have  done  nothing  for  a  High  Church  parish;  so 
that  said  parish  is  bound  in  good  faith  to  take  care  that  the  trust  funds  placed  in 
its  hands  be  not  diverted  from  the  objects  intended  -by  the  donors;  and  Whereas, 
we,  the  Vestry  of  said  parish,  represent  the  same  viaws,  and  deny  the  dogma  that 
‘  There  is  no  Church  without  a  Bishop,'  and  hold  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  and 
other  denominations  in  our  village  and  elsewhere — who  maintain  substantially  the 
same  grand  principles  of  Christianity — are  only  branches  of  the  same  Catholic 
Church,  under  different  forms  of  organization  :  Therefore,  Resolved,  That  this 
paper  be  included  in  the  Call  to  any  clergyman  that  we  may  elect  as  our  Rector, 
and  that  his  acceptance  of  the  same  shall  signify  that  he  agrees  with  the  above, 
and  will  resign  in  case  he  shall  change  his  views  on  these  points. — Benjamin 
Aycrigg,  Senior  Warden,  Jacob  K.  Dunham,  Junior  Warden,  James  A.  Norton,  Sec. 
of  Vestry,  George  H.  Evans,  Richard  A.  Terhune,  M.D.,  Wal stein  S.  Brown,  John 
H.  Bell,  Vestry  of  St.  John’s  Church,  Passaic. — Approved  in  Parish  Meeting  and 
ordered  to  be  printed,  April  13,  1868.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  Rector  and  Pres¬ 
ident.” 

(51)  This  shows  the  position  of  St.  John’s  Church,  from  its  inception  in  1859  up 
to  1871.  During  this  time  we  had  bought  an  acre  of  ground  in  the  heart  of  the 
city,  and  built  a  beautiful  church,  and  bought  a  fine  rectory  and  ground,  and  had 
thus  accumulated  a  property  worth  about  $30,000  more  than  the  debts,  which  were 
trifling  in  comparison,  and  left  at  interest  intentionally.  In  1871  I  declined  a  re-elec¬ 
tion,  and  went  to  Europe.  On  my  return  in  1872,  I  found  that  the  new  Vestry  had 
ignored  the  action  of  1868  (xii.  50),  and  had  elected  an  avowed  High -Churchman. 
The  result  is  stated  (iv.  8;  iii.  March  25, 1874,  Parties;  March  29, 1875,  Low;  xi.  1). 

(52)  St.  Alban’s  Ritualistic  Church. . iii.  July  9,  1874. 

(53)  (iii.  Oct.  12,  1874).  The  General  Convention  of  the  P.  E.  C.  showed  a 
proper  spirit  of  independence  in  refusing  to  become  the  tail  of  a  Pan-Anglican 
Church.  But  the  following  extracts  (54,  55)  show  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Bishop 
of  Albany,  the  P.  E.  C.  is  now  under  the  same  political  control  as  the  Church  of 
England,  although  the  contrary  opinion  was  expressed  by  both  Houses  in  1814. 

xii.  26. 

(54,  55)  (iii.  Oct.  26, 1874,  Rev. ;  Feb.  27, 1875,  Rit.  and  Bishop).  Dr.  De  Ivoven 
says:  “  I  want  to  give  anybody  in  this  house  the  opportunity  of  presenting  me  for 
false  doctrine  if  he  wishes;  and  in  order  to  do  so,  I  choose  some  language  that  is 
balder  and  barer  than  I  myself  would  use,  excepting  in  a  company  of  theologians.” 
And  he  thus  dares  the  whole  General  Convention  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  because  he  uses 
“  adjudicated  words  of  an  English  judge  to  express  what  opinions  were  allowable 

in  the  Church,’’  as  the  Bishop  says . xi.  1. 

• 

TRIUMPH  OF  THE  RITUALISTS. 

(56)  The  Methodist  Recorder  (ii.  Dec.  17,  1873)  says  ;  “  In  a  few  years,  if  we  are 
to  judge  by  facts  and  figures,  the  High-Churchmen  will  have  the  control  of  prop¬ 
erty,  literature,  theology,  people,  and  all.”.. iii.  March  25  and  April  8,  1874,  Parties, 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  (iii.  Oct,  29,  1874)  in  Gen.  Con.  said  of  the  R.  E.  C.:  “  They 
felt  alarmed ;  they  believed  that  there  was  so  strong  a  current  in  the  Church — of 


154 


CHAPTER  XII. 


56th.  Section. 

advancement — tliat  they  were  not  safe  in  remaining  here,  and  they  had  to  leave  the 
ship  before  she  sunk.”  And  again  (iii.  Dec.  31,  1874),  with  respect  to  the  proposed 
canon  to  allow  the  omission  of  the  “  Regeneration  ”  clause,  he  said,  “  I  hope  no  vote 
of  this  House  will  try  to. ..  .restore  them  to  life,  which  life  will  uphold  Bishop 
Cheney.” 

Hev.  Dr.  Huntingdon  (iii,  Oct.  29,  1874)  in  Gen.  Con.  said  :  “  To  my  mind, 
the  crisis  comes  from  a  far  profounder  movement  than  that”  [i.  e.,  the  R.  E.  C.] 
He  then  attributes  it  to  “  that  illustrious  man,  John  Henry  Newman.” 

Church  Journal  (iii.  Juno  11.  1874)  says  :  “  The  question  is  not  one  of  cassocks, 
chasubles,  cottas,  or  processionals,  but  of  doctrine,  and  that  doctrine  goes  to  the 

verv  root  of  things.” 

*  ° 

Church  and  State  (iii.  Sept.  24, 1874)  says  :  “  The  General  Convention  is  given 
to  understand  that  Ritualism  is  un terrified  and  unabated.” 

Goddard,  of  St.  Andrews,  (iii.  Nov.  11, 1874)  says  :  “  The  R.  E.  C.  does  exist 
and  grow,  and  Ritualism  and  Eucharistic  Adoration  are  not  wounded  to  death 
among  us.”  ,  \ 

Church  Journal  (iii.  Feb.  25,  1874)  says :  “  The  old-fashioned  Evangelicals, 
swamped  into  a  hopeless  and  helpless  minority,  stand  looking  on,  asking  what  we 
propose  to  do  about  it.” . . . xii.  59. 

Hev.  Jas.  A.  Latane  (iii.  Jan.  12,  1874)  says :  “  In  the  Church  the  battle  has 
been  fought,  and  in  the  Church  the  battle  has  been  lost.” 

The  Late  General  Convention  came  on  after  nearly  all  the  above  had  been 
written.  The  R.  E.  C.  had  beeifi  organized,  and  produced  a  deep  impression  (xiii. 
10).  All  knew  that  the  P.  E.  C.  had  reached  a  crisis,  and,  acting  with  this  knowl¬ 
edge,  the  General  Convention,  by  a  strong  vote,  determined  the  future  standing  of 
the  P.  E.  C . xii.  59. 

(57)  The  alternative  presented  to  the  Evangelicals  in  the  P.  E.  C.  was  to  sub¬ 

mit  or  leave  (iii.  Nov.  11,  1874,  Cli.  Jo.  and  St.  X.)  We  had  the  opinion  of  the 
Chief  Justice  of  Great  Britain  that  the  Prayer  Book  gives  the  Ritualists  a  status  in 
the  Ch.  Eng.  (xii.  24).  The  Prayer  Book  of  the  P.  E.  C.  gives  to  them  the  same 
status  in  the  P.  E.  C.  (xii.  25).  They  are  undoubtedly  honest,  and  they  are  earnest 
and  united.  They  have  the  control,  and  have  been  constantly  growing  stronger.  To 
resist  when  resistance  is  useless — is  faction  in  the  State  and  schism  in  the  Church. 
The  Reformers  quietly  retired  rather  than  submit  to  what  they  believed  to  be 
wrong  (xiv.)  All  the  confusion  arising  from  this  separation  has  been  on  the  part  of 
the  P.  E.  C.,  which  has  pursued  the  Reformers  as  Pharaoh  pursued  the  Israelites, 
and  for  the  same  reason . xiii.  10. 

COMPREHENSIVE  CHURCH. 

(58)  To  disprove  charges  made  against  the  R.  E.  C.  (xiii.  10),  we  have  Apostolic 
example  to  prove  the  duty  of  separating  from  schism  (xii.  7.),  and  the  authority  of 
Church  and  State  (iii.  Sept.  10, 1874)  for  saying  that  the  P.  E.  C.  comprehends  “  Low, 
High,  High  and  Dry,  High,  fancy,  mixed,  and  compound.”  This,  although  not 
intended  to  be  taken  literally,  does  not  exaggerate  the  schismatic  condition  of  the 
P.  E.  C.,  with  the  different  parties  “  checking,  abusing,  opposing  each  other,  giving 
occasion  for  the  infidel  to  scoff,  and  leading  the  unreflecting  to  believe  that  religion 
is  nothing  but  priestcraft.”  (iii.  Jan.  7,  1875,  Parties),  Thus,  in  Chapter  XI.,  we 


CHAPTER  XII. 


155 


58tli  Section. 

have  the  proof  that  the  Principles  of  the  R.  E.  C.  are  identical  with  those  of  the 
Low  Churcli  party  in  the  P.  E.  C.  And  these  Low  Church  views  are  given  in 
Chapter  III.,  under  the  caption  “Low,”  and  in  (iv.  v.  vii.  ix.  xi.  xiv.  xv.)  These  are 
very  simple  and  uniform,  and  represent  the  views  of  the  “  Old  Evangelicals  ”  in  the 
P.  E.  C.,  and  doubtless  there  are  many  yet  remaining  in  the  P.  E.  C.  who  differ  from 
the  R.  E.  C.  only  as  to  the  propriety  of  separating.  These  form  one  party  in  that 
Church,  called  “  Low  ”  by  Church  and  State  as  above.  And  we  have  all  the  varieties 
in  the  following  extracts  in  Chapter  III.  (iii.  Dec.  4,  1873,  Excl.;  Jan.  1,  1864,  Rit.  ; 
March  4,  Rit.;  High  and  Low;  March  18,  Rit. ;  March  25,  Low ;  May  7;  June 
10,  High  and  Low;  June  12,  Rit;  July  8,  Rit. ;  July  9,  Bp.  and  St.  Alban’s;  Aug. 
27;  Sept.  26;  Oct.  1,  Rit.;  Oct.  8,  Greek;  Oct  12,  Toler;  Oct.  19,  Rit.  and 
Rit.;  Oct.  22,  Court ;  Oct.  23,  Rit.;  do;  Oct.  24  to  29,  Rit.;  Oct.  26,  Dr.  De  and  Rit.  ; 
Oct.  27,  Bp.  and  Rit.  in  5  extracts,  and  Canon ;  Oct-  29,  Report  and  Dr.  Andrews 
and  Inf.  and  Dr.  Hunting,  and  “Let  ”;  Oct.  31,  Can.,  Dr.  Beck,  Dr.  Adams,  Canon 
Ref.  and  on  Bap. ;  Nov.  3,  Pastoral  3d  ;  Nov.  11,  Pastoral;  Drift;  Bapt. ;  Rejoice;  Ch* 
Jo.;  Nov.  14,  Low;  Nov.  18,  Rit.;  Dec.  9,  Bap.;  Dec.  16,  Div.;  Dec.  25,  Mid. ;  Dec. 
30,  High  ;  Dec.  30,  Low;  Parties;  Dec.  31,  Tor.;  Jan.  7,  1875,  Parties;  Jan.  8, 
Toronto  ;  Jan.  14,  Toronto  ;  Jan.  16,  Toronto  ;  Jan.  27,  Lay  ;  Feb.  4,  Illinois  ;  Feb. 
5,  DeKoven  Bishop;  Feb.  6,  Gen.;  Coleman;  Feb.  8,  Jag.;  Feb.  10,  De  K.,  Rit. 
Log.,  Can.;  Feb.  11,  De  K.  ;  Feb.  13,  De  K.';  Feb.  15,  De  K.;  Feb.  18,  Log;  Church; 
Bishop  ;  do ;  Feb.  24,  Parties  ;  Feb.  25,  Low  ;  Feb.  27,  Rit.;  March  3,  Exclu.;  March 
17,  Ireland ;  do.  Ch.  Eng. ;  xx.  1). 

GENERAL  CONVENTION  OF  P.  E.  C.,  OCT.  8  to  NOV.  3,  1874. 

(59)  Church  and  State  (iii.  Nov.  11,  1874)  says  :  “  Some  of  the  adherents  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  are  evidently  disappointed  with  the  results  of  the  late  General  Conven¬ 
tion.”  But  in  what  respect  is  not  stated.  We  shall  now  see. 

Church  Journal  (iii.  Nov.  11,  1874)  sa}rs:  “May  the  hand  be  withered  and  the 
tongue  dumb  that  moves  again  for  debate  or  strife,  that  writes  or  speaks  to  organ¬ 
ize  a  party  or  to  promote  views.”  (iii.  Jan.  7,  1875,  Ch.  Jo.) 

Standard  of  the  Cross  (iii.  Nov.  11, 1874)  rejoices  in  the  result  of  the  late 
Convention.  Now  we  have  these  facts  to  show  the  “drift  of  the  Church” — 
Homeward. 

The  Excluding  Canon  of  1888,  still  draws  the  line  of  schism  in  these  words : 
“  No  minister  in  charge  of  any  congregation  of  this  Church,  or,  in  case  of  vacancy  or 
absence  no  church  wardens,  vestrymen,  or  trustees  of  the  congregation  shall  permit 
any  person  to  officiate  therein,  without  sufficient  evidence  of  his  being  duly  licensed 
or  ordained  to  be  a  minister  of  this  Church  ;  provided. . .  .communicants. . .  .to  act  as 

lay  readers _ ”  Canon  II.  Title  i.  Digest  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (xii.  41,  42  ;  iii.  Dec.  4, 

1873,  Exclusive). 

Baptismal  Regeneration  (iii.  Oct.  24  to  31, 1874).  The  Committee  in  General 
Convention  proposed  to  leave  the  “  regeneration  ”  clause  optional.  The  debates 
show  that  this  was  requested  by  the  Diocese  of  Virginia,  and  a  large  number  of 
individuals.  Dr.  C.  W.  Andrews  (iii:  Oct.  29)  told  them  that  this  was  the  main 
question  that  drove  evangelical  ministers  out  of  the  P.  E.  C.  No  one  holds  that  this 
clause  is  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  Sacrament.  But  the  Ritualists  hold  that 
it  expresses  a  doctrinal  truth,  that  the  child  is  saved  ex  opere  operate.  This  pro- 


156 


CHAPTER  XII. 


59th  Section. 

posed  liberty  to  allow  evangelical  clergymen  to  omit  the  words  which  they  believe 
to  convey  a  falsehood,  without  any  change  for  those  who  prefer  the  present  form, 
received  only  5  clerical  and  6  lay  votes  in  its  favor  to  34  clerical  and  24  lay  votes 
against  it,  making  the  total  11  to  58,  or  nearly  to  1,  in  favor  of  forcing  evangeli¬ 
cal  ministers  to  say  what  they  do  not  believe,  or  else,  as  said  Rev.  Dr.  Beck  (iii. 
Oct.  31,  1874),  “  If  you  find  that  you  are  wrong  in  using  this  book,  withdraw  from 
the  Church  whose  manual  it  is.”  (iii.  Dec.  9,  1874,  Bapt). 

Canon  on  Ritual  (iii.  Oct.  23  to  31,  1874).  This  proves  that  the  Ritualists 
controlled  the  General  Convention  in  some  way  that  can  only  be  surmised,  since 
the  House  of  Bishops  act  in  secret.  In  (iii.  Nov.  14,  1874,  Ritualist)  some  of  the 
thirty-two  points  enumerated  are  beyond  my  knowledge.  But  the  official  report 
shows  these  simple  facts.  The  House  of  Deputies  wished  to  prohibit  “  Incense  ” 
and  Crucifix  ”  in  express  terms.  The  House  of  Bishops  refused.  The  Deputies 
insisted,  and  appointed  a  Committee  of  Conference.  The  Deputies  yielded  to  the 
Bishops,  and  the  words  “  Incense  ”  and  “  Crucifix  *  were  stricken  from  the  Canon, 
and  in  this  form  the  Canon  was  passed  by  ayes,  28  Clerical,  and  28  Lay  votes,  to 
noes,  2  Clerical,  and  1  Lay  vote;  or  total,  5G  to  3.  So,  that  by  an  almost  unani¬ 
mous  vote  of  the  General  Convention,  the  Ritualists  are  now  officially  informed 
that  they  may  use  Incense  and  the  figure  of  Christ  suspended  on  the  Cross,  without 
the  danger  of  being  charged  with  wrong. 

Eucharistic  Adoration  (iii.  Dec.  12,  1874).  Rev.  Dr.  Craik,  the  President  of 
the  House  of  Deputies  in  the  General  Convention  of  1874  (and  previously),  in  a  late 
sermon  said  :  “  A  far  more  solemn  and  emphatic  condemnation  of  this  virtual 
revival  of  an  exploded  pagan  theory,  was  given  by  the  refusal  of  the  House  of 
Deputies  to  confirm  Dr.  Seymour  as  Bishop  of  Illinois.” 

But  (iii.  Oct.  22,  1874)  the  table  of  votes  shows  that  he  had  89  to  71  clerical 
votes,  or  a  majority  of  18  individual  clergymen;  and  19  to  10  Diocesian  clerical 
votes,  or  a  majority  of  9  Dioceses  by  clergymen;  and  145  to  139  members  of  the 
Convention,  or  a  majority  of  6  members,  if  on  joint  ballot,  by  individuals;  and  32 
to  23  Dioceses,  or  a  majority  of  9  Dioceses,  if  on  joint  ballot  by  Dioceses.  And  he 
was  only  defeated  by  a  technical  majority  of  12  individual  laymen  out  of  124 
laymen,  and  a  technical  majority  of  5  out  of  31  Dioceses  voting  by  laymen,  because 
by  Canon  he  must  have  a  majority  of  both  Orders  voting  separately.  Hence,  although 
this  “  pagan  theory  ”  was  not  technically  endorsed  by  the  General  Convention,  still 
it  was  endorsed  by  the  actual  majority  of  6  votes  of  all  the  members,  and  by  89  to 
71  of  the  Clergymen. 

And  (iii.  Feb.  10,  1875)  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour  says  :  “  Holding  the  highest  and  most 
responsible  office  which  a  presbyter  can  occupy,  as  representing  the  whole  Church 
in  presiding  over  the  General  Theological  Seminary.”  And  this  is  explained  by 
(iii.  Oct.  20,  Dr.  Seymour;  Oct.  31,  Trustees)  showing  that  the  Dioceses  nominate,  and 
the  General  Convention  elects,  the  Trustees,  and  that  the  Trustees  have  appointed 
(as  they  still  retain)  Dr.  Seymour  in  his  position  to  teach  this  “  exploded  pagan 
theory.”  And  the  vote  in  Convention  shows  that  he  fairly  represents  the  wishes 
of  the  majority  of  the  Convention, 

iii.  Dec.  25, 1874,  Midnight ;  Feb.  4,  1875,  Gen.  Sem. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hopkins  (iii.  Feb.  18,  1875)  says  that  Professor  Seymour  “  is  still 
left  free  to  instill  his  principles  into  the  heads  of  candidates  for  Holy  Orders, 


CHAPTER  XII. 


157 


59th  Section. 

though  (apparently)  pronounced  unfit  to  lay  his  hands  upon  the  outside  of  the 
same.” . ii.  Dec.  2,  1878,  Organization. 

(60)  R.  E.  C.  and  other  Protestant  Churches.  The  R.  E.  C.  having  separ¬ 
ated  from  the  P.  E.  C.,  is  no  longer  combined  with  the  Old  Evangelicals  in  forming 
a  schism  in  that  Church;  nor,  combined  with  the  other  schisms  in  that  Church,  is 
it  forced  by  the  ruling  majority  to  be  a  part  of  the  general  schism  of  the  P.  E.  C. 
towards  other  churches  which  carry  the  name  Protestant  (xii.  58).  Its  principles 
being  simple,  uniform,  and  held  by  all  alike,  there  is  no  internal  schism.  These 
principles  are  frequently  explained,  and  the  difference  drawn  between  the  R.  E.  C. 
and  the  P.  E.  C.  Thus  we  hope  to  repel  discordant  accessions,  and  thus  keep  out 
internal  schism  such  as  now  troubles  the  P.  E.  C.  (xiv.  9).  Other  Protestant 
Churches  are  neither  schisms  nor  in  schism,  as  a  general  rule.  There  are  excep¬ 
tions.  But  not  in  the  case  of  either  in  (xv.)  and  some  others.  Many  Baptists  are 
abandoning  their  schismatic  “  close  communion  ”  resemblance  to  the  P.  E.  C.  I 
know  of  no  reason  why  there  should  not  be  a  Federative  union  between  the  R.  E. 
C.  and  the  P.  E.  C.  (xiv.;  xv.  16)  except  the  spirit  of  the  P.  E.  C.  towards  the  R.  E. 
C.  (xiii).  This  spirit  is  analogous  to  that  exhibited  by  the  mother-country  when 
the  American  Colonies  declared  their  independence,  and  like  that,  will  die  out  with 
those  who  are  cotemporaries  with  the  separation. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


SPIRIT  OF  THE  P.  E.  C.  TOWARD  THE  R.  E.  C. 


Contents: — (1  to  4).  Preliminaries. — (5).  Some  admit  the  principal  of 
separation. — (6).  Bishops  Lee ,  and  Johns ,  and  Vail ,  and  Clarkson  object 
like  Christians. — (7  to  9).  Some  appear  to  want  charity,  and  to  use  the 
sword  of  Joab ;  others  to  mean  less  than  the  words  express ;  others  to  be 
frightened. — (10).  Collection  of  epithets. — (11).  Answers. — (12).  “ Formally 
deposed.”— ( 13).  But  Dr.  Cheney  was  not  deposed. — (14  to  17).  Bishop  Lewis , 
of  Canada,  with  (15)  Record  of  Bishop  Cummins. — (18  to  22).  Bishop  Lee, 
of  Delaware  ;  his  first  complaint  is  a  compliment.  Bishop  Cummins  did  not 
think  of  resigning  until  after  Oct.  12.  Several  Bishops  admit  the  time 
may  come.  lie  and  others  thought  the  time  had  come. — (23).  Dr.  Fulton 
thinks  that  he  is  the  first  to  use  hard  icords. — (24).  Bishop  Stevens  alone 
raises  a  question  of  veracity. — (25).  Dr.  Sullivan  is  f  rightened  out  of  pro¬ 
priety. — (26).  The  Standard  of  the  Cross  cries  for 11  quarter.” — (10f).  P.  E.  C. 
is  a  small  denomination. 

SEE  THE  FOLLOWING  CHAPTERS  FOR  TROOF. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  (xii.  12,  25,  58) :  That  the  Church  of  England  and  the  P.  E.  C.  form  a  Pan- 
Anglican  schism,  which  cuts  itself  off  from  the  Protestant  world  while  it  is  cut 
off  by  the  schismatic  Churches  of  Greece  and  Rome. 

(2)  (xii.  56,  58,  59) :  That  each  of  these  two  parts  of  the  Pan- Anglican  schism  is 

a  “  comprehensive  Church  ”  containing  different  “  parties”  or  “  schools,”  with  an¬ 
tagonistic  opinions  on  points  deemed  vital  by  all  parties  ;  and  that  each  is  in  a 
chronic  state  of  schism  with  the  different  parties  forming  hostile  factions,  “fighting 
it  out  within  the  Church,”  while  the  ruling  majority  is  carrying  the  whole  in  the 
direction  of  Medisevalism . xvi.  20. 

(3)  (xi.  24,  25,  26) :  That  the  clergy  of  the  R.  E.  C.  were,  for  the  most  part,  for¬ 
merly  “  Old  Evangelicals  who  carried  the  Evangelical  banner  so  nobty  ”  in  the  P. 
E.  C.,  who  have  ceased  to  be  a  party  in  schism  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  have  separated 
from  those  with  whom  they  could  not  agree,  as  did  Paul  and  Barnabas  (Acts 
15  :  39),  and  in  so  doing  have  proved  their  heroism  in  breasting  the  torrent  of  abuse 
(xiii.  10),  which  has  been  of  great  service  to  the  R.  E.  C.  in  keeping  off  the  drift - 
wood  that  appears  to  be  collecting  in  the  opposite  direction. 

iii.  May  20,  1874.  Candidates  degenerating. 

(4)  (xiv.  3,  8,  9) :  That  the  R.  E.  C.  lias  not  made  a  single  attack  upon  the 
P.  E.  C.,  and  in  three  cases  only  has  corrected  erroneous  statements  made  by  the 
P.  E.  0.  to  injure  the  R.  E.  C.  ;  but  lias  endeavored  to  make  all  understand  the 

(158) 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


159 


4th  Section. 

difference  between  the  R.  E.  C.  and  the  P.  E.  C.,  thus  repelling  those  who  agree 
with  the  ruling  majority  in  the  P.  E.  C.  And  the  remarks  by  the  P.  E.  C.,  are 
collected  in  this  chapter,  as  valuable  testimony  on  the  part  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  to  verify 
the  statements  made  by  the  R.  E.  C.  And  the  plain  statement  of  facts  and 
conclusions  in  this  book  are  not  abuse,  but  matters  of  argument . xiii.  28. 

(5)  (ii.) :  That  several  Bishops  appear  to  admit  that  the  time  may  come 
when  a  separation  from  the  P.  E.  C.  will  become  a  duty  on  the  part  of  the  Old 
Evangelicals ;  but  they  think  that  the  time  is  not  yet.  The  difference  between 
them  and  the  R.  E.  C.  is  not  of  principle,  but  of  quantity,  (ii.  Dec.  11,  1873,  Bp. 
H.  W.  Lee  ;  June  25,  1874,  Bp.  Lee,  of  Delaware  ;  July  2,  Bp.  Alford ;  June  11,  Bp. 
Robertson  ;  Aug.  5,  Bp.  Vail.) 

(G)  (ii.)  Several  Bishops  have  objected  to  a  new  organization  in  a  thoroughly 
Christian  spirit.  Had  these  been  true  representatives  of  the  ruling  characteristic 
of  the  P.  E.  C.,  there  would  have  been  no  R.  E.  C.  (ii.  Feb.  10,  1875,  Bp.  Vail  ; 
Feb.  2G,  Bp.  Lee  of  Delaware  ;  March  4,  Bp.  Johns  ;  Sept.  10,  Bp.  Clarkson.) 

(7)  (ii.)  But  with  respect  to  some  (xiii.  10)  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  injunc¬ 
tion  on  the  score  of  Charity  (iii.  Nov.  3,  Pastoral  Letter),  and  charity  as  described 
by  St.  Paul  (1st.  Cor.  xiii.),  and  the  sword  of  Joab  (2d.  Sam.  xx.  9,  10)  ;  and  (3d 
John  9,  10)  and  (xvi.  27.) 

(8)  (ii.  June  3,  Bp.  Odenheimer).  At  the  same  time,  the  violence  of  expression 
against  the  R.  E.  C.  may,  in  some  cases,  produce  an  impression  that  was  not  seri¬ 
ously  intended.  Thus  :  the  expressions  quoted,  may  be  classed  with  others  made 
by  Bishop  Odenheimer  in  Convention  of  New  Jersey  in  1862  [?],  when  an  exciting 
session  lasted  until  near  midnight,  and  the  Hon.  Cortlandt  Parker  (xii.  49,  49-§) 
thus  addressed  the  Bishop  :  “  I  have  this  day  heard  remarks  from  that  Chair  that 
are  only  suited  to  a  throne,  and  that  throne  the  Papacy,"  dropping  his  voice  to  a 
play-house  whisper  on  the  last  word.  I  took  occasion  to  call  at  the  office  of  the 
speaker  and  thank  him  for  what  he  had  said.  But  at  the  same  time,  I  admire 
Bishop  Odenheimer,  and  from  many  years’  acquaintance,  know  that  his  practice  is 
better  than  his  theory.  Hence  I  do  not  understand  the  remarks  here  quoted,  as  I 
would  understand  the  same  remarks  from  a  stranger.  From  the  general  character¬ 
istics  of  some  of  the  others,  I  suppose  that  the  same  remarks  may  apply  to  them. 

vii.  4  ;  xiv.  4. 

(9)  (ii.  Dec.  31,  1873,  So.  Ch.)  The  general  feeling  is  probably  accounted  for  in 
this  extract. 

(10)  Varieties  of  expression  for  the  same  thoughts  that  will  apply  with  equal 
force  to  Cranmer,  Latimer,  Ridley,  and  Ch.  Eng. 

II.  Dec.  1,  1873.  (Card).  “  Sorrow,  but  no  sympathy.  ”  (x.  15.) 

II.  Dec.  4.  (Cli.  Jo.)  “  Fallen  Bishop  ;  wretched  sin  ;  ridiculous  ;  unbalanced  ; 
apostate  Bishop.”  (xiii.  11). 

II.  Dec.  8.  (Clin.)  “Formally  deposed.”  (xiii.  12,  13.) 

II.  Dec.  11.  (Clin.)  “Fallen  Bishop.” 

II.  Dec.  13.  (Ch.  St.)  “Utterly  dishonorable.”  (ii.  Dec  16,  1874.  B.  A.) 

II.  Dec.  17.  (Ch.  Jo.)  “  Better  than  some  others.” 

II.  Dec.  17.  (So.  Ch.)  “  Foolish.” 

II.  Dec.  31.  (Bp.  Pearce).  “Feeble  schism  ;  most  miserable  case;  misguided.” 

xx.  1.  Jan.  14,  1874.  (Bishop  Doane).  “  Heated  haste  ;  in  debt,  distress,  dis- 


160 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


9th.  Section.  1874. 

contented  ;  violent  schism  ;  degenerate  ;  Pharisaism  ;  venom  ;  reaked  ;  gall ;  false 
witness  ;  noxious  flower  ;  contradicts  itself.”  (xx.  1). 

II.  Feb.  23.  (Bp.  Lewis).  “  Not  consistent ;  spurious ;  if  men  of  learning ; 
petty  American  sect,”  and  (iii.  Dec.  31,  1874),  “  Cli.  Eng.  is  not  Protestant.”  (xiii. 
14  to  17.)  (xx.  8.) 

II.  Feb.  26.  (Bp.  Lee,  of  Delaware),  (xiii.  6,  18  to  22). 

II.  March  14  (Bp.  Wliittingham).  “  Perjured  Bishop.” 

III.  April  8.  (Bp.  Potter).  “  Mosquito.” 

II.  April  22.  (Dr.  Fulton).  “  Perjury ;  treachery ;  ungentlemanlike  infidelity ; 
betrayed,”  (xiii.  23.) 

II.  May  7.  (Bp.  Quintard).  “Evil  course  of  her  wayward  son.” 

II.  May  21.  (Ch.  St.)  answered  (xiii.  11.) 

II.  June  3.  (Bp. Odenheimer).  “Schism;  ungodly;  unchurclily ;  ungenerous; 
misguided.”  (xiii.  8.) 

II.  June  3.  (Ch.  Jo.)  “  Queerest  Bishop.” 

II.  JuneS.  (Clin.)  “Drunken  slave.” 

II.  JuneS.  (Rev.  Dr.  Stewart).  “Maggots;  god  of  flies.” 

II.  June  3.  (Bp.  Smith),  refers  to  “  Anti-Christ.” 

II.  June  10.  (Bp.  Stevens).  “Unfaithfulness;  disaffected  sect;  falsehoods; 
misrepresentations;  perversions.’’  (xiii.  11,24.) 

June  10.  (Bp.  Huntington).  “Without  reason;  justification;  logical  weight; 
clearness,  or  pathos.  Weak,  distracting;  barren;  futile;  schism;  bitter;  cruel; 
indignity.”  (xx.  5.) 

II.  June  25.  (Bp.  Clark).  “Quasi-Episcopacy;  disaffected.” 

II.  June  25.  (Bp.  Williams).  “  Worse  than  death.” 

II.  June  25.  (Bp.  Lee  of  Del.)  “  Legitimate  fruit.” 

II.  July  2.  (Bp.  Kerfoot)'.  “  Schism  ;  sloughing  off;  betrayed  his  trust.’’ 

II.  July  9.  (Bp.  Gregg).  “A  miserable  following.” 

II.  July  15.  (Bp.  Talbot).  “  Unhappy  and  misguided  ;  schismatical  ;  treachery 
to  vows  ;  betrayed;  wounded  the  Church.” 

II.  Aug.  19  (Ch.  St.)  “  Unwise  and  miserably  abortive.” 

II.  Oct.  22.  (Dr.  Harwood).  “  Hangs  fire.” 

III.  Oct.  29.  (Dr.  Adams).  “  Leave  the  sinking  ship.” 

III.  Oct.  29.  (Dr.  Sullivan).  “  In  debt,  distress,  discontented  ;  skulked  ;  cow¬ 
ard;  smote  the  hindmost.”  (xiii.  25.) 

III.  Oct.  31.  (Dr.  Fulton).  “Blister.” 

II.  Nov.  18.  (Ch.  St.)  Answered,  (xiii.  11.) 

II.  Jan.  7,  1875.  (Pacific  Churchman).  “Ambition;  ignorance;  perjured; 
apostate;  Cheeney.”  (Post-prandial.) 

III.  Feb.  10.  (Canada).  “  The  difficulty.” 

III.  Feb.  18.  (“  V.”  in  So.  Ch.)  “  Loving  spirit”  of  the  P.  E.  C.  ! 

II.  Feb.  25.  (Rev.  A.  D.  Miller).  “Made  an  ass  of  yourselT.”  (xiii.  27.) 

II.  Feb.  25.  (Postal  Card).  “  Ex-Rev.’’  (xiii.  27.) 

II.  March  4.  (St.  X.)  “  Stop  agitating.”  (xiii.  26.) 

II.  April  7.  (Bp.  Howe).  “Abuse;  schism;  not  argue.”  (xiii.  28.) 

III.  Feb.  25.  (Pope  Pius  IX.)  Expresses  the  same  thoughts  in  these  words, 
viz. :  “  Wolves,  perfidious,  Pharisees,  Philistines,  thieves,  revolutionists,  Jacobins, 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


161 


9th  Section. 

sectarians*  liars,  hypocrites,  dropsical,  impious,  children  of  Satan,  of  perdition,  of 
sin  and  corruption,  enemies  of  God,  satellites  of  Satan  in  human  flesh,  monsters  of 
hell,  demons  incarnate,  stinking  corpses,  men  issued  from  the  pits  of  hell,”  “  traitors 
led  by  the  spirit  of  hell,  teachers  of  iniquity,”  “  diabolical  halls,’’  “  hell  is  un¬ 
chained  against  him,  even  its  deepest  pits.”  Gladstone  says  :  “Nearly,  if  not 
quite,  every  one  of  these  words  is  from  the  Pope’s  own  lips,  and  the  catalogue  is  not 
exhaustive.”  (iii.  Feb.  25,  1875,  Obs.) . (xx.  10.) 

(104)  Now  ;  When  the  Pope  thus  speaks,  he  is  the  mouthpiece  of  the  millions 
of  Roman  Catholics  throughout  the  world.  They  all  agree  that  he  is  “  infallible .” 
But  in  the  P.  E.  C.  each  speaker  represents  only  his  own  part  of  this  denomination 
(xii.  58).  The  entire  P.  E.  C.,  according  to  the  census  of  1870,  stood  eighth  in  the 
list  of  Protestant  Churches,  being  exceeded  in  members  by  :  1st,  Baptists,  1,410,- 
493;  2d,  Methodist  Episcopal,  North,  1,367,134;  3d,  Other  Methodists,  except  South, 
773,022;  4th,  Methodist  Episcopal,  South,  571,241;  5th,  Presbyterian,  North,  455,- 
378  ;  6th,  Lutherans,  449,510 ;  7th,  Congregational,  306,518 ;  8th,  Protestant  Epis¬ 
copal,  224,995 ;  while  the  annual  increase  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal,  North  and 
South  together,  was  94,368,  or  more  than  one-third  of  the  whole  P.  E.  C.  Then 
to  the  above,  add  the  membership  of  9th,  German  Reformed,  217,910  ;  10th,  Uni¬ 
ted  Brethren,  120,445  ;  11th,  Cumberland  Presbyterian,  96,335;  12th,  Presbyterian, 
South,  87,529  ;  13th,  United  Presbyterians,  71,804  ;  14th,  Reformed  Dutch,  63,483  ; 
15th,  Moravians,  7,097  ;  making  the  total  membership  of  the  Protestant  Churches  in 
the  country  6,222,894;  so  that  all  the  parties  of  the  P.  E.  C.  put  together,  count  only 
one  in  twenty-eight  of  the  Protestants,  without  including  the  Roman  Catholics, 
whose  representative,  the  Pope,  speaks  of  them  and  other  Protestants  as  above 
quoted  (xiii.  10 — iii.  Feb.  28, 1875).  Hence  the  modest  assurance  of  “  The  Church  ” 
and  of  “  Churchmen’’  is  more  remarkable  than  that  of  the  one  juryman  who  knew 
that  he  was  right,  and  complained  of  the  obstinacy  of  the  other  eleven,  who  would 
not  yield  to  him.  If  it  be  objected  that  number  is  not  a  proper  standard,  then  is 
the  Pan  Anglican  Church  a  political  failure,  for  the  object  in  making  it  so  “  com¬ 
prehensive’’ on  the  score  of  doctrine  (xii.  58),  was  to  collect  as  many  persons  as 
possible,  (xii.  12  to  26;  29  references ;  xx.  i  ;  iii.  Feb.  9  and  20,  1875.) 

(11)  For  Answers  to  the  above  (ii.  Dec.  4,  1873,  Ch.  Jo.)  by  an  unknown 
author,  see  (ii.  Dec.  31,  1873,  So.  Ch.)  Then  the  three  following  by  three  Reformers 
(ii.  June  3,  1874,  Epis.)  in  answer  to  (ii.  May  21,1874,  Ch.  St.),  and  (ii.  June  10, 
1874,  Open  Letter)  in  answer  to  (ii  June  10,  1874,  Bp.  Stevens),  and  (ii.  Dec.  16, 
1874,  B.  A.)  in  answer  to  (ii.  Nov.  18,  1874,  Ch.  St.)  Then,  leaving  the  reader  to 
draw  his  own  conclusions  as  to  the  others  (xiii.  10),  examine  the  following  : 

(12)  (II.  Dec.  6,  1873).  Why  does  the  Churchman  use  the  expression  “  for¬ 
mally  deposed,”  with  respect  to  these  clergymen  who  had  all  resigned  when  in  good 
standing?  Was  it  to  create  the  impression  without  telling  a  falsehood,  that  they 
had  been  driven  out  of  the  P.  E.  C.  for  heresy,  crime,  or  immorality  ?  And  why  do 
the  “  Church  Almanacs  ”  say  “  deposed  ”  for  resigned  ?  All  Churches  depose  for 
heresy,  crime,  or  immorality.  The  P.  E.  C.  is  peculiar  in  attempting  to  disgrace 
her  clergymen  who  go  elsewhere,  and  when  you  say  that  a  minister  of  that  Church 
has  been  “  deposed,”  it  may  be  for  the  “  offence  ”  of  resigning,  or  for  heresy,  crime, 
or  immorality,  unless  explained  in  the  courteous  manner  of  Bishop  Odenheimer  in 
the  “  Journal ”  of  the  New  Jersey  Convention:  “1869,  April  19 — Deposed  on  his 


162 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


12th  Section, 

letter  of  resignation,  and  not  for  crime  or  immorality,  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith.*' 
If  the  Churchman  offer  the  excuse  that  this  was  written  for  Episcopalians  who 
know  that  deposition  follows  resignation,  then  why  not  give  that  reason,  as  did 
Bishop  Odenheimer?  Or  why  use  the  word  at  all  when  it  may  he  so  easily 
misunderstood?  And  why  the  intensitive,  “formally  deposed ,”  since  if  not 
“  formally  deposed  ”  he  is  not  deposed  at  all  ?  (iii.  Oct.  31,  1874,  Drs.  Beck  and 
Adams). 

(13)  But  the  Rev.  Charles  E.  Cheney,  D.D.,  was  not  “formally  deposed,”  as 
stated  by  the  Churchman.  He  had  signed  the  Chicago  Protest  (xi.  14),  and  he  had 
omitted  the  single  word  “  Regenerate  ”  in  Infant  Baptism.  Many  others  do  the 
same  (iii.  July  15;  Aug.  13,  1874;  Feb.  10,  1875).  But  by  “Geographical  Cliurch- 
manship  ”  (iii.  Sept.  10)  for  this  (or  under  this  pretence)  he  was  condemned,  and  de¬ 
clared  by  Bishop  Whitehouse  “  Degraded  from  the  ministry  of  the  Church  of  God.” 
Had  his  trial  been  Canonical,  this  sentence  was  not,  for  Canon  5,  Title  II.  of  the 
Digest  says,  “  Deposed  from  the  ministry  of  this  Church.”  He  would  not  thus 
have  been  “  formally  deposed.”  But,  says  Church  and  State  (iii.  Sept.  10),  in  “  the 
chaotic  condition  of  our  Courts  ”. ...  ‘  uncanonical  sentences  ’  are  “  irreversible  ”  (ex¬ 
cept  perhaps  by  the  civil  courts.)  (iii.  Feb.  3,  1875,  Prot.)  Thus  we  find  (iii.  Aug. 
19)  the  Civil  Court  of  Illinois  decided  that  his  trial  by  four  assessors  when  five  were 
appointed,  vitiated  the  whole  proceeding,  and  he  not  having  been  “  formally  de¬ 
posed  ’’  according  to  Canon,  was  not  deposed  at  all ;  and,  being  still  a  Presbyter  of 
the  P.  E.  C.,  he  could  not  be  ejected  from  the  property  belonging  to  the  P.  E.  C. 
And  such  was  his  position  when  he  was  elected  Bishop  in  the  R.  E.  C.  at  the 
Council  of  Dec.  2,  referred  to  by  the  Churchman  as  above,  and  such  his  position 
when  he  was  consecrated  Bishop,  Dec.  14,  by  Bishop  Cummins,  who  was  in  like 
position — chained  to  the  P.  E.  C.  against  his  will,  and  not  allowed  to  resign  by  the 
singular  laws  of  that  Church.  And  such  is  still  the  position  of  Bishop  Cheney,  who, 
by  the  terms  of  the  Canon'  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  is  still  a  Presbyter  in  the  P.  E.  C., 
although  he  is  a  Bishop  in  the  R.  E.  C.  (xi.  43).  And  why  are  the  Canonists 
troubled  about  this  matter,  if  not  as  supposed  ?  (ii.  Dec.  31,  1873,  So.  Ch.) 

(13|)  (II.  Dec.  13,  1873).  “  Indelicacy ....  on  the  eve  of  the  final  act.  ”  This  is 
answered. . xiii.  20. 

(14)  II.  Feb.  23,  1874.  Bishop  Lewis,  of  Ontario,  thinks  that  Bishop  Cum¬ 

mins  has  been  inconsistent.  This  might  be  so  if  he  entertained  the  same  views  as 
Bishop  Lewis  on  the  subject  of  Apostolic  Succession.  But  consistency  is  not  laid 
down  as  a  Christian  virtue,  and  whether  consistent  or  not,  I  believe  that  it  was  the 
finger  of  Providence  which  directed  Bishop  Cummins  and  the  other  founders  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  through  their  previous  course,  to  prepare  them  for  that  especial  work. 
Certainly  they  would  not  have  been  prepared  for  that  work  without  their  previous 
experience  . iv.  4  to  8. 

(15)  As  to  this  consistency.  Bishop  Coxe,  in  his  record  of  Bishop  Cummins  (in 
the  Churchman' s  Calendar)  states  that  he  was  “  born  Dec.  11, 1822  ;  educated  at 
Dickinson  College,  Pa.,  graduating  in  1841 ;  ordained  deacon  by  Bishop  Lee,  of 
Delaware,  in  Oct.,  1845,  and  priest  by  the  same  prelate  in  July,  1847. . .  .assistant 
Bishop  of  Kentucky  Nov.  15,  18GG.”  Thus  at  about  the  usual  age  of  23  he  became 
deacon  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  this  was  the  Church  of  his  paternal  and  maternal 
ancestors.  Bishop  Coxe  omits  to  state  that  Dickinson  College  is  a  Methodist  institu- 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


163 


15th.  Section. 

tiou,  and  that  for  one  year  Bishop  Cummins  acted  as  a  Methodist  deacon  before  he 
became  deacon  in  the  P.  E.  C.  x 

(16)  Also,  Bishop  Lewis  must  rank  himself  very  high  on  the  score  of  “  learn¬ 

ing,”  to  assume  such  superiority  over  several  clergymen  in  the  R.  E.  C.  (ii.  Nov.  19, 
1873,  Bp.  Cum.  References) . xvii.  2. 

(17)  Again.  He  says  :  “  The  name  Protestant. . .  .is  never  used  in  the  descrip¬ 

tion  of  our  Church.  It  is  never  introduced,  in  connection  with  our  national  Church, 
in  our  acts  of  Parliament  ”  (iii.  Dec.  31,  1874,  Tor.),  while  its  full  title  is  “  The  Prot¬ 
estant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established.” . xii.  17;  xx.  8. 

(18)  (ii.  Feb.  26,  1874).  Bishop  Alfred  Lee,  of  Delaware  (xiii.  6).  This 
letter  is  dated  Nov.  14.  It  must  have  been  written  almost  immediately  on  receipt 
of  information  of  the  resignation  of  Bishop  Cummins,  dated  Nov.  10.  He  wished 
to  cause  a  retraction,  and  used  such  arguments  as  immediately  suggested  them¬ 
selves  from  his  point  of  view,  without  time  to  examine  the  other  side.  He  does 
not  repeat  these  remarks  in  his  address  made  formally  in  Convention. 

ii.  June  25,  1874. 

(19) .  Take  the  other  side,  and  his  first  complaint  is  a  compliment  to  Bishop 
Cummins.  So  is  the  “  Card  ”  (ii.  Dec.  1,  1873).  So  is  the  remark  of  Dr.  Tyng,  Sr. 
(ii.  Dec.  4,  1873).  These  substantiate  the  public  assertion  of  Bishop  Cummins, 
“  I -consulted  with  no  man  when  I  took  this  step;”  and  they  agree  with  all  that  I 
know  on  and  after  Nov.  12,  1873  (ix.  4  to  16).  They  prove  that  Bishop  Cummins 
was  no  traitor,  forming  a  party  within  the  Church,  to  leave  the  Church  while  act¬ 
ing  as  a  member  of  that  Church;  for  these  are  the  very  men  with  whom  he  had 
been  accustomed  to  act,  and  the  first  to  whom  he  would  have  communicated  his 
plan  if  he  had  intended  to  make  up  a  party  to  leave  that  Church.. . .  xii.  35.,  xi.  26 

(20)  Again  (ii.  Feb.  26).  As  to  the  dilemma.  The  sudden  change  that  I  wit¬ 
nessed  respecting  the  reprint  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  1785,  was  proof  of  previous 
intention  of  using  it  for  a  different  purpose;  i.  e.,  as  a  Low-Church  document  (vi.  4). 
And  the  decision  to  resign  must  have  been  after  this  was  put  into  the  printer’s 
hand;  so  that  it  must  have  been  after  the  Alliance  met,  and,  therefore,  with  less 
time  for  consideration  than  allowed  by  Bishop  Lee. 

(21)  But  several  Bishops,  including  Bishop  Lee  himself,  on  a  subsequent  occa¬ 

sion,  speak  very  plainly  of  the  threatened  results  from  the  present  Romeward  ten¬ 
dency  in  the  P.  E.  C.  (xiii.  5).  And  within  my  own  knowledge  in  1867,  I  formally 
objected  to  a  resolution  when  passed  by  the  Evangelicals,  because  it  carried  an 
implied  threat  that  we  would  secede  immediately  unless  the  General  Convention 
should  comply  with  our  demands  (xii.  46).  And  in  1869  I  endeavored  to  dissuade 
Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  from  withdrawing  from  the  P.  E.  C.,  by  the  remark  that  there 
might  be  a  favorable  result  from  so  much  agitation;  and  he  answered,  “  That  may 
do  for  you.  As  a  layman  you  simply  say,  *  I  don’t  believe  it,’  but  as  a  clergyman 
I  am  obliged  to  use  words  which  I  believe  convey  falsehoods.”  And  many  other 
clergymen  and  laymen  had  withdrawn  for  similar  reasons . xi.  24. 

(22)  Thus  the  whole  question  of  the  position  of  Low-Churchmen  in  the  P.  E.  C. 
had  been  thoroughly  discussed  before  the  date  of  the  Joint  Communion  of  Oct.  12 
(v.  3,  4).  This  communion  aroused  a  discussion  that  concentrated,  in  a  few  weeks, 
the  result  of  many  years.  Bishop  Cummins,  as  I  suppose,  was  then  forced  to  the 
conclusion  that  resistance  within  the  P.  E.  C.  would  be  futile,  and,  consequently", 


164 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


22d  Section. 

resigned  on  Nov.  10,  1873.  As  a  layman,  I  liad  for  this  reason  abandoned  the 
Church  of  my  ancestors  on  Oct.  30,  1873  (xii.  45),  and  when  an  honest  man  reaches 
this  conclusion,  it  requires  neither  years,  nor  months,  nor  weeks,  to  act  upon  his 
judgment,  that  he  must  retire  immediately. 

ii.  Jan.  21, 1874,  Eng.;  iii.  Dec.  4,  1873,  Parties. 

(23)  (II.  April  22,  1874).  Rev.  Dr.  Fulton  suggests  all  these  hard  words  for 
others  to  add  to  their  vocabulary  ;  says :  “  There  has  been  ample  room  for  such 
words,”  and  then  triumphs  in  the  “  Nicene  charity  ”  and  “  honor  of  the  Church,” 
that  they  “  have  not  been  spoken  ”  by  any  one  besides  himself.  He  does  not  know 
of  (xiii.  10). 

“Where  ignorance  is  bliss  ’tis  folly  to  be  wise.”  (iii.  Oct.  31,  1874  ;  ii.  April 
30, 1874). 

(24)  (II.  June  10).  Bishop  Stevens  stands  alone  in  raising  a  question  of 
veracity  between  himself  and  the  members  of  the  R.  E.  C.  Since  Mr.  Smith  has 
corrected  his  historical  errors,  and  the  errors  of  his  charges  (ii.  June  10,  1874, 
Open),  I  will  simply  quote  the  words  of  Burke,  “  Men  know  a  little,  presume  a  great 
deal,  and  so  jump  to  the  conclusion.” 

(25)  (III.  Oct.  29,  1874).  Dr.  Sullivan  misapplies  the  terms  “in  debt,  distress, 
skulked,  coward ”  (xx.  1).  I  do  not  suppose  that  he  or  any  member  of  the  Conven¬ 
tion  believe  that  either  of  these  terms  could  writh  truth  be  applied  to  any  single  in¬ 
dividual  member  of  the  R.  E.  C.  Still  these  terms,  applied  as  a  general  character¬ 
istic  of  all,  are  applauded  by  the  “  laughter”  of  the  General  Convention.  This  we 
may  attribute  to  the  confusion  of  ideas  caused  b j  fear.  Dr.  Sullivan  denies  it  in 
General  Convention  (iii.  Oct.  29,  Dr.  Sull.  and  Dr.  Ilun.)  But  as  the  French  say, 
“  Qui  s’ excuse  s' accuse,”  and  when  a  man  says  he  is  not  afraid,  we  generally  find  that 
he  is  afraid,  and  the  harder  he  protests  that  he  is  not  afraid,  the  more  we  believe 
that  he  is  afraid.  And  subsequent  developments  proved  that  Dr.  Sullivan  and 
others  who  opposed  the  confirmation  of  Dr.  De  Koven,  are  very  much  afraid  of  the 
R.  E.  C.,  and  apparently  for  good  reasons,  (iii.  Feb.  15,  1875,  De  Koven  Memorial  ; 
i.  Nov.  11, 1874,  Ill.;  Dec.  10,  1874,  Bp.  Cheney  ;  iii.  Feb,  24, 1875,  Parties  ;  March 
3,  1875,  Dio.) 

(26)  (II.  March  4,  1875)  ( Standard  of  the  Cross) :  “We  do  wish  Bishop  Cum¬ 
mins  and  his  followers  would  stop  agitating.”  This  is  unintelligible  when  we  com¬ 
pare  (xiii.  10)  with  (xiv.),  except  the  objection  be  to  the  agitation  produced  by 
stating  facts  respecting  the  P.  E.  C.  “  On  this  point  I  will  tell  a  little  story  ” 
(Lincoln).  A  man  under  trial  began  to  cry,  as  the  testimony  bore  hard  against  him. 
The  judge  said,  “You  need  not  cry,  I  will  see  that  you  have  justice.”  He  answered, 
“  That  is  just  what  I  am  afraid  of!” 

(27)  (II.  Feb.  25,  1875).  Postal  Cards.  The  first  is  known  to  be  genuine.  It 
is  reported  that  a  similar  card,  by  the  same  person,  has  been  sent  to  another  clergy, 
man.  The  office  and  initials  of  the  second  agree  with  a  name  in  the  clergy  list  of 
the  P.  E.  C.  This  record  will  assist  in  giving  greater  publicity  to  their  remarks,  as 
that  appears  to  be  the  object  in  sending  them  openly  on  a  postal  card,  although 
they  violate  civil  law  in  using  cards  for  such  purposes.  At  my  request  the  Rev.  M. 
B.  S.  sent  to  the  Rev.  A.  D.  Miller,  a  note  of  inquiry,  to  be  sure  that  the  card  wTas 
not  a  forgery.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Miller  answers,  . .  .Any  f  Reformed  documents,’  of 
which  I  have  received  a  good  many,  I  never  read  one  of  them,  and  it  might  save 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


165 


27th.  Section. 

postage  on  tlie  part  of  the  publishers  to  send  them  to  a  better  market.”  Now,  if 
he  has  not  read  the  Open  Letter  of  Rev.  M.  B.  S.,  upon  what  basis  does  he  call  him 
an  “  ass  ?”  (ii.  June  10,  1874). 

(28)  (II.  April  7,  1875).  Bishop  Ilowe  indirectly  charges  the  R.  E.  C.  with 
“abusing  the  P.  E.  C.,”  and  with  being  a  “schism,”  and  says,  “I  do  not  argue.” 
Now,  in  consideration  of  these  charges  by  Bishop  Howe,  I  request  him,  or  any  one  in 
his  behalf,  to  answer  the  following  charges  against  him,  to  be  inserted  in  Chapter 
XX.  upon  the  terms  mentioned  in  the  Preface.  First.  He  “  abuses”  the  R.  E.  C.  by 
making  these  charges,  and  then,  without  a  word  to  prove  it,  saying  “  I  do  not 
argue.”  Second.  He  reverses  the  facts.  The  newspaper  reports  (xiii.  10)  show  fre¬ 
quent  instances  of  abuse  of  the  R.  E.  C.  by  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  Chapter  III.  contains 
several  instances  of  abuse  of  each  other  by  the  different  parties  in  the  P.  E.  C.  (xii. 
58).  This,  I  suppose,  will  not  be  denied.  But  I  believe  that  Chapter  XIV.  gives  a 
fair  statement  of  the  action  of  the  R.  E.  C.  towards  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  that  Bishop 
Howe  cannot  produce  a  single  case  to  sustain  his  wholesale  charge,  “  like  them 
. . .  .spend  most  of  your  time. . .  .in  abusing.”  Third.  He  “  abuses  ”  the  R.  E.  C.  by 
calling  it  a  “  schism,”  without  explaining  how  it  is  so,  since  all  agree  that  “  schism 
is  a  sin.”  In  Chapter  XII.  I  assert  that  the  R.  E.  C.  is  a  “  separation  from  schism, 
in  accordance  with  Apostolic  example,”  and  that  the  P.  E.  C.  is  “  a  schism  in  schism 
according  to  Apostolic  authority.”  If  I  should  then  say,  “  I  do  not  argue,”  I  would 
be  guilty  of  “  abuse.”  But  I  do  argue,  and  show  the  basis  upon  which  I  make  this 
charge  against  the  P.  E.  C.  If  Bishop  Howe  can  prove  my  argument  unsound,  the 
charge  goes  with  it,  and  without  such  proof  the  mere  assertion  of  the  whole  House 
of  Bishops  will  have  but  little  weight . xii.  8. 

“  'Tis  not  antiquity  nor  author 

i  That  makes  truth  truth,  although  time’s  daughter.” 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


SPIRIT  OP  THE  R.  E.  C.  TOWARD  THE  P.  E.  C. 


Contents  : — (1,  2).  Work  and  be  silent. — (3).  No  answers  made  to 
attacks  except  to  correct  errors  as  to  facts. — (4).  No  ill-feeling  to  prevent  a 
re-union  if  errors  were  removed  and  personalities  atoned  for. — (5).  Mr. 
Turner  in  his  pamphlet. — (6).  Mr.  Smith  on  opening  the  Church  in  Louis¬ 
ville. — (7,  8).  Cause  of  separation  explained  by  fads. — (9).  For  and  against 
the  R.  E.  C.,  according  as  the  hearer  is  Protestant  or  Romanist. — (10). 
Letter  Dimissory. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  “We  have  laid  down  our  course,  and  shall  not  swerve  from  it  one  inch,  for 
anything  that  man  can  do  against  us.”  (x.  14.) 

(2)  “  Whosoever  shall  smite  the  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also.’’ 
(Matt.  5:39.) 

(3)  This  second  quotation  was  followed  by  all  identified  with  the  R.  E.  C.  until 
after  six  months  of  abuse.  Then  the  first  notice  by  any  one  identified  with  the  R. 
E.  C.  was  (ii.  June  3),  correcting  the  misstatement  of  facts  by  Church  and  State  of 
(ii.  May  21).  Then  (ii.  June  10,  Open  letter),  correcting  the  misstatements  of  his¬ 
tory  and  of  facts  by  Bishop  Stevens.  Then  (ii.  Dec.  16,  1874),  correcting  the  mis¬ 
statement  of  facts  by  Church  and  State  of  (Nov.  18).  All  other  defense,  as  far  as  I 
know  or  believed,  has  been  by  those  who  are  not  identified  with  us.  But  whether 
identified  or  a  friend,  there  is  not  a  single  case  of  abuse  of  the  P.  E.  C.  as  far  as  I 
have  seen  (except  the  statement  of  facts  be  abuse),  although  we  are  charged  at 
wholesale  with  “  falsehood, misrepresentation,  perversion’’  (ii.  June  10;  xiii.  24),  and 
with  “abuse.”  (ii.  April  7,  1875;  xiii.  28.) 

(4)  Nor  do  I  know  of  any  ill-feeling  existing  in  the  R.  E.  C.  towards  the  P.  E. 

C.,  nor  anything  on  our  part  to  prevent  an  immediate  re-union  if  the  errors  for 
which  we  separated  were  corrected,  and  the  personalities  (xiii.  10)  atoned  for.  If 
this  were  done,  I  could  with  great  satisfaction  resume  my  old  position  which  I  held 
for  twelve  years  as  lay  delegate  to  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  New  Jersey, 
(vii.  4,  8 ,  xii.  49^  ;  xiii.  8  ;  ii.  Dec.  31,  1873,  Return ;  iii.  Oct.  29,  1874,  Ref.  Dr. 
Garrison  ;  xx.  3.)  ' 

(5)  The  same  feeling  is  expressed  as  the  general  feeling  of  the  R.  E.  C.  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  remarks  of  H.  B.  Turner,  Esq.,  in  his  pamphlet  reprinted  from 
the  Christian  Age  of  Aug.  6, 1874.  He,  as  Secretary  of  the  Council  and  member  of 
the  Standing  Committee,  has  a  fair  opportunity  of  knowing  the  views  of  his  asso¬ 
ciates  (i.  May  13  to  19,  1874).  He  says  :  “  It  may  be  as  well  to  add  in  conclusion 
that  the  R.  E.  C.  is  founded  in  no  spirit  of  hostility  to  its  older  sister.  From  her 

(166) 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


167 


5th.  Section. 

its  members  have  received  a  grand  organization,  a  glorious  history,  and  unequalled 
liturgy.  Earnestly  and  prayerfully  they  have  sought  for  guidance  and  direction, 
and  now  they  ask  to  worship  God,  and  to  preach  the  Gospel  according  to  the  dic¬ 
tates  of  their  own  consciences.  Educated,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  in  the  fold  of 
the  P.  E.  C.,  it  would  be  strange  if  they  did  not  love  her  with  the  love  of  children 
for  their  mother.  Her  services  are  hallowed  in  their  thoughts  by  the  memory  of 
early  years,  of  parents,  and  of  friends  who  there  offered  with  them  their  common 
supplications.  In  the  minds  of  some  persons  there  is  still  a  lingering  hope  that 
the  old  Church  may  by  this  movement  be  induced  to  plant  herself  fully  and  firmly 
on  the  now  abandoned  ground  of  Evangelical  Protestanism,  and  thus  insure  the 
failure  of  the  reformers.  But  none  more  than  they  would  rejoice  at  such  a  result 
of  their  labors.  Such  a  failure,  were  it  possible,  would  be  indeed  the  grandest  and 
most  complete  success;  like  the  failure  of  Columbus,  who  never  reached  the  India 
for  which  he  was  seeking,  but  instead,  opened  wide  the  gates  through  which  who¬ 
ever  would  might  enter,  and  share  in  the  glories  of  an  unknown  world.” 

(6)  The  Hev.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  who  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  R.  E. 
C.,  and  is  now  President  of  the  General  Standing  Committee,  and  is  intimately 
acquainted  with  the  views  of  his  associates,  spoke  in  the  same  manner  in  his  ad¬ 
dress  at  the  opening  of  the  new  church  in  Louisville.  (ii.  Nov.  30,  1874).  (i.  May 
13  to  19,  1874 ;  xi.  26.) 

(7)  The  great  majority  of  the  members  of  the  R.  E.  C.  were  formerly  members 
of  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  have  separated  from  their  former  associates  because  they  could 
not  agree  on  points  deemed  vital  by  each.  For  this  we  have  the  example  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas.  We  have  been  violently  attacked,  but  made  no  answer  in  return, 
except  as  above,  and  in  the  production  of  facts  to  prove  the  propriety  of  our  separa¬ 
tion.  (vii.  1-6.) 

(8)  These  facts  have  been  presented  in  addresses,  sermons,  books,  pamphlets, 
and  newspaper  articles,  as  recorded  in  these  pages.  We  have  never  denied  that 
Ritualists  and  Romanists  are  as  much  entitled  to  their  own  opinion  as  we  are.  We 
have  never  denied  that  they  are  as  honest  and  conscientious  as  we  are.  But  we 
both  believe  the  other  to  be  in  the  wrong,  and  both  produce  arguments  to  prove  our 
positions,  (ii.  Dec.  11,  1873,  Obs.  Ed.) 

(9)  All  of  our  statements  give  our  opinion  as  to  the  Ritualistic  facts  and  tenden¬ 
cies  of  the  P.  E.  C.  With  those  whose  views  are  Protestant,  these  statements  are 
in  our  favor.  With  those  whose  views  are  Ritualistic,  the  same  statements  are 
against  us,  as  far  as  numbers  are  concerned.  And  this  we  desire.  Having  separ¬ 
ated  from  the  P.  E.  C.  to  get  out  of  schism,  we  desire  to  prevent  schism  in  our  new 
Church  by  preventing  the  association  of  discordant  elements,  and  therefore  desire 
that  all  may  know  precisely  what  are  our  positions,  that  none  may  come  who  deny 
those  positions,  and  that  those  who  agree  may  join  in  restoring  the  Episcopal 
Church  to  the  cause  of  Protestantism. 

(10)  The  First  Letter  Dimissory  received  from  another  Church  is  described 
(ix.  10).  The  first  letter  given  was  by  Bishop  Cummins  to  the  Rev.  W.  H,  John¬ 
son  on  his  application  for  the  same  in  accordance  with  Canon  5,  Title  I.  of  the  R.  E. 
C.,  and  contained  these  words  as  quoted  from  memory. . . Commending  him  with 
Christian  love  and  prayer  for  God’s  blessing  upon  him,  to  the  Ecclesiastical 
Authorities  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.”  (iii.  Apr.  1,  1875;  Rev,  W,  H.  J.) 


168 


CHAPTER  XI Y. 


11th.  Section. 

(11)  Conservatism.  I  have  on  different  occasions  been  tlirdwn  on  the  defensive 
when  maintaining  that  the  Reformers  are  conservatives ;  and,  in  illustration,  have 
quoted  David  Crockett’s  “  red  heifer  story,”  which  I  heard  him  relate  at  a  political 
meeting  about  forty  years  ago,  as  follows  :  “  You  see  !  My  constituents  are  nearly 
all  Jackson  men,  and  they  keep  sending  me  to  Congress  and  scolding  me  for  not 
being  a  Jackson  man.  I  tell  them  this  story :  A  farmer  took  liis  man  with  his  team 
to  one  corner  of  his  field,  and,  pointing  to  a  red  heifer  in  the  other  corner,  told  him 
to  plough  towards  that  heifer,  and  then  left  him.  About  noon  he  came  out,  and 
saw  a  furrow  running  in  all  directions  about  the  field,  and  the  man  ploughing  with 
what  appeared  to  be  a  spike-team,  with  the  heifer  in  the  lead.  He  stopped  him, 
and  asked  what  he  was  doing.  The  man  answered,  ‘  Just  what  you  told  me  to  do.’ 
*  Did  I  not  tell  you  to  plough  towards  the  red  heifer  that  was  standing  in  the  cor¬ 
ner?’  ‘Yes;  and  I  have  been  ploughing  after  her  all  the  morning.’  ‘  Well,  that 
is  really  what  I  said,  but  I  intended  that  you  should  plough  in  the  direction  where 
the  heifer  then  stood,  and  keep  on  making  parallel  furrows.’  So,”  said  Crockett, 
“  I  tell  them  that  I  am  making  parallel  furrows  in  the  direction  in  which  Jackson 
stood  when  I  began  to  plough,  and  when  he  changed  his  ground  I  did  not  follow 
him.”  Thus  the  Reformers  do  not  follow  the  erratic  movements  of  the  P.  E.  C. 

xii.  32,  38,  45  to  48,50,51;  iv.  3  to  8;  xvi.;  xi.  2 — xii.  58. 


CHAPTER  XV 


OTHER  CHURCHES. 


Contents: — (1  to  12).  Presbyterians  and  Old  Evangelicals  in  1867. — 
(13,  14).  Presbyterians  in  1874. — (15).  Free  Church  of  England  Federative 
Union  with  the  R.  E.  C.  in  1874. — (16).  The  same  principles  applicable  to 
any  Evangelical  Church. — (17).  Reformed  {Dutch)  Church  in  Holland ,  and 
in  America ,  in  1697,  1779,  1790. — (18).  Receives  the  new  Church  in  1874. — 
(19,  20).  “ Dissenters  ”  true  in  England ,  but  false  in  this  country. — (21) 
Letter  to  Dr.  Wainwright  in  1846. — (22).  A  general  Federation  would  be  a 
blessing ,  but  organic  union  objectionable  if  too  extensive. 

(1)  Presbyterian  National  Convention  of  delegates  from  all  tlie  branches  of 

the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  America,  was  in  session  in  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church,  Broad,  below  Spruce  Street,  on  Wednesday,  Nov.  6, 1867,  at  the  same  time 
that  the  meetings  of  the  Evangelical  Societies  of  the  P.  E.  C.  were  in  session  in  the 
same  city,  as  reported  in  the  Protestant  Churchman  of  Nov.  14, 1867  :  “At  the  sug¬ 
gestion  of  the  Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton,  Rector  of  St.  Paul’s  P.  E.  C . prayer  was 

offered  for  the  Divine  blessing  on  the  National  Convention  of  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  in  America.” . xi.  9  to  12. 

(2)  On  Thursday,  Nov.  7  :  “  During  the  meeting  a  delegation  was  announced 
from  the  Presbyterian  National  Convention. ..  .Rev.  Messrs.  H.  B.  Smith,  D.D., 
and  J.  M.  Stevenson,  D.D.,  and  Elders  Drake  and  Carter,  who  were  appointed  to 
convey  the  following  resolution  of  Salutation  to  the  Evangelical  Societies :  ‘  Re¬ 
solved,  That  this  Convention  send  its  cordial  salutation  to  our  Episcopal  brethren 
now  assembled  in  Convention  in  this  city,  praying  that  grace,  mercy,  and  peace 
may  rest  upon  them  from  God  our  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.’ 

(3)  “  The  business  was  suspended  in  order  that  they  be  received.  Rev.  Dr.  H. 
B.  Smith,  for  the  Delegation,  made  an  address  of  salutation.  The  address  was 
responded  to  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine. . .  .expressing  his  high  appreciation  of  Presbyte¬ 
rian  standards,  and  the  sympathy  he  felt  in  their  movements  of  reunion.  Senator 
Drake  then.... in  an  earnest  and  stirring  address. ..  .laid  his  hand  on  the  open 
Bible. . .  .and  said  :  ‘  Here  is  the  centre  and  bond  of  our  union.’ 

(4)  . . . .  “  On  motion  of  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  Jr.,  a  Committee. . .  .Bishops  Mcllvaine 
and  Lee,  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  Jr.,  and  Messrs.  J.  N.  Conyngliam  and  F.  R.  Brunot, 
was  appointed  to  respond  personally  to  the  resolution  on  Friday  morning  at  10 
o’clock ...  .Bishop  Eastburn  made  an  earnest  prayer,  and  the  clergy  and  laity 
present  exchanged  salutations  with  the  Presbyterian  Delegates.” 

(5)  “  On  Friday  morning. . .  .the  brethren  repaired  in  a  body  to  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Church  . .  On  the  clergy  and  laity  of  our  Societies  entering. . .  .they 
were  received  by  the  members  rising  . .  .Geo.  H.  Stuart,  Esq.,  the  presiding  officer, 

(169) 


170 


CHAPTER  XV. 


5th.  Section. 

read  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  and  called  on  the  Rev. 
Richard  Newton,  D.D.,  . .  .to  offer  prayer.  .  .  .The  deputation. . .  .Bishops  Mcllvaine 
and  A.  Lee,  and  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  Jr.,  aud  Messrs.  Conyngham  and  Brunot,  ascend¬ 
ed  the  platform  and  were  accommodated  with  seats. . . .” 

(6)  “  Prof  H.  B.  Smith. . .  .introduced  our  delegates. . .  .Mr.  Stuart,  advancing  to 
Bishop  Mcllvaine,  said :  ‘  Brother — I  shall  not  call  you  Bishop  now,  for  we  are  all 
brethren  ;  I,  on  behalf  of  the  Presbyterian  Convention,  welcome  you  and  your  col¬ 
leagues.’  ” 

(7)  “  Bishop  Mcllvaine  [as  reported  by  himself  in  the  Protestant  Churchman, 

Jan.  16,  1868]  said _ ‘  The  anniversaries  of  the  three  Societies _ have  been  held 

. . .  .Our  hearts  were  drawn  out  in  fraternal  love  and  prayer  for  God’s  blessing  on 
your  present  Convention. . .  .Its  spirit  was  reciprocated,  and  prayer  was  offered  by 
you  for  us.  Those  prayers  have  been  answered. ..  .and  we  believe  God  has.... 
brought  us  together. . .  .In  the  General  Convention. . .  .in  1856. . .  .the  importance 
of  measures  for  bringing  about  a  better  understanding  and  a  nearer  union  among 
Protestant  Churches  was  brought  very  pointedly  before  the  House  of  Bishops.  A 
Committee  of  five  Bishops  was  appointed  to  take  advantage  of  any  opportunities 
that  might  arise  of  pursuing  that  object.  . .  I  am  the  only  surviving  member. . . . 
It  is  reserved  for  me  to  stand  in  this  place  and  discharge  the  duty  entrusted  to  that 
Committee.  I  believe  the  present  opportunity  to  be  precisely  such  as. . .  .contem¬ 
plated.  I  stand  here  now  to  do  the  work  of  that  Committee,  and  wre  greet  you, 
brethren,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. . .  .On  neither  side  did  there  appear  a  way  for 
the  removal  of  the  lines  which  now  separate  us  as  Churches.  But  these  barriers 
are  purely  made  up  of  externals.  They  do  not  enter  among  the  great  matters  of 
Christian  faith  and  spiritual  life. . .  The  foundation  is  not  in  this  or  that  external 
order,  but  the  person  of  Christ ....  That  is  the  foundation  of  God,  other  than 

which  can  no  man  lay _ Our  case  must  be  what  we  build  thereupon.  On  that 

foundation,  we,  brethren,  as  Churches  are  built.  It  is  not  merely  as  individual 
Christians  that  we  stand  together  on  that  foundation,  but  as  Christian  churches.’ 

(9)  “  Bishop  Lee  said  that  the  deputation  had  come  to  express  a  reciprocation  of 
the  courteous  and  Christian  greeting. . .  .The  interchange  of  fellowship  and  Chris¬ 
tian  love  was  unprecedented  and  unexpected.  This  certainly  could  not  be  attribu¬ 
ted  to  the  will  or  wisdom  of  man,  but  to  God  our  Father. . .  .The  truths  of  the  Ref¬ 
ormation  have  ever  been  maintained  by  your  Communion. ..  .When  we  shall  be 
assembled  before  the  Almighty,  how  insignificant  will  appear  the  differences  which 
have  here  distracted  us  as  members  of  the  Church.” 

(10)  “  Prof.  H.  B.  Smith  then  recited  the  Apostles’  Creed,  all  present  repeating 
. . . .‘  Blessed  be  the  tie  that  binds  ’  was  sung  with  wonderful  effect. . .  .Mr.  Stuart 
. . .  .introduced  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  Jr. . .  .Mr.  Tyng  remarked. . .  /  We  are  all  breth¬ 
ren.  . .  .bent  on  the  same  object’. . .  Judge  Conyngliam and  Felix  R.  Brunot. . .  .made 
a  few  appropriate  remarks. . .  .Mr.  Stuart  then  said  :  ‘  Reverend  Fathers  and  dearly 
beloved  brethren,  we  thank  you  in  the  name  of  this  Convention  for  the  words  of 
cordial  greeting  and  Christian  sympathy. . . .’ 

(11)  “Rev.  Clias.  Hodge,  D.D.,  said.... in  behalf  of. . .  .the  Presbyterian  Con¬ 
vention,  which  represents  about  5,000  ministers,  an  equal  number  of  churches,  and 

over  one  million  of  souls  (xiii.  10£) - ‘  We  wish  to  assure  you  that  your  names  are 

just  as  familiar  to  our  people  as  your  own,  and  that  we  appreciate  your  services  in 


CHAPTER  XV. 


171 


llth  Section. 

the  cause  of  our  common  Master  as  the  people  of  your  own  Church. . .  .You,  Bishop 
Mcllvaine  and  Bishop  Johns,. ..  .and  I  were  boys  together  in  Princeton  College 
fifty  odd  years  ago. . .  .You  have  gone  your  way  and  I  mine. . .  .1  do  not  believe  that 
. . .  .you  have  preached  any  sermon  on  matters  of  faith  and  salvation  which  I  would  not 
have  rejoiced  to  have  delivered.  I  feel  the  same  confidence. . .  .that  I  never  preached 
a  sermon  which,  you  would  not  have  publicly  and  cordially  endorsed. . .  .Was  not  your 
Church  and  ours  rocked  in  the  same  cradle?. . .  .Do  they  not  bear  the  same  testi¬ 
mony?.  . .  .What  difference  is  there  between  the  89  Aiticles  and  our  Confession  ? 
...  We  stand  here  to  say  to  the  whole  world,  we  are  one  in  faith,  one  in  hope,  and 
one  in  allegiance  to  your  Lord  and  our  Lord.’ 

(12)  “  Rev.  Dr.  Stearns,  a  member  of  the  Convention,. . .  .alluded  to  the  possibility 
of  a  united  Church  . .  .Bishop  Mcllvaine  led. . .  .in  prayer  for  God’s  blessing  on  the 

Convention. ..  .Rev.  John  Hall,  D.D., _ followed  in  prayer  for  a  blessing  on  the 

Evangelical  efforts  in  our  Church  in  America  and  in  Great  Britain.  Rt.  Rev. 
Bishop  Lee,  of  Delaware,  then  repeated  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  all  present  uniting. . . . 
Mr.  Stuart  then  repeated  the  last  three  verses  of  the  6th  chapter  of  Numbers. . . . 
The  Doxology  wras  sung,  and  the  Benediction  pronounced  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 
The  members  of  the  Convention  exchanged  congratulations  with  our  clergy  and 
laity,  and  shortly  afterward  the  deputation  and  the  Brethren  withdrew.  Such  a 
scene  we  have  never  before  witnessed.”  (v.  4 ;  vi.  5  ;  xii.  40  ;  xiii.  6  ;  xvi.  19 
to  24.) 

(13)  Presbyterians  in  1874.  The  New  York  Times  (i.  Dec.  4, 1874)  has  an  ex¬ 
tended  account  of  a  meeting  in  Dr.  Crosby’s  Church  on  Dec.  3,  of  a  Convention  of 
all  the  various  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  “  To  form  a  Federation  of 
the  Churches  which  hold  to  the  Presbyterian  form  of  faith.”  Dr.  McCosh  said : 
“  They  should  not  have  all  Presbyterian  Churches  united  in  one  organization.  It 
would  not  be  expedient  to  do  so.”  (See  References  xv.  12). 

(14)  A  copy  of  the  “  Journal  ”  of  the  R.  E.  C.  was  immediately  sent  to  a  member 

of  that  Convention,  and  referring  to  the  Union  of  the  R.  E.  C.  with  the  Free 
Church  of  England  and  the  Corresponding  Constitution  and  Canons,  suggested  that 
his  Church  should  not  restrict  their  federative  union  to  the  Presbyterians,  but  like 
the  Evangelical  Alliance,  embrace  all  Evangelical  Churches  of  every  name  and  na¬ 
tion.  He  answered  that  that  would  exactly  meet  his  views,  and  this  movement  was 
a  step  in  that  direction . xvi.  28. 

FEDEBATIVE  UNION,  ADOPTED  MAY  14,  1874. 

(15)  Between  the  Free  Church  of  England  and  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 
(Pages  23-5,  “  Journal,”  Appendix  E). 

“  Article  I.  As  an  evidence  of  the  union  existing  between  the  Free  Church  of 
•  England  and  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  a  delegation  of  ministers  and  laymen 
may  be  sent  annually  from  the  Convocation  to  the  General  Council,  and  from  the 
General  Council  to  the  Convocation,  with  the  right  to  take  part  in  the  deliberations 
of  said  bodies  respectively. 

“  x\rticle  II,  In  the  consecration  or  ordination  of  Bishops  or  other  ministers, 
in  each  Church,  the  Bishops  and  ministers  of  the  other  Church  shall  be  entitled  to 
participate. 

“  Article  III.  The  ministers  of  either  of  said  Churches  shall  be  entitled  to 


172 


CHAPTER  XV. 


15th  Section. 

officiate  transiently  in  the  congregations  of  the  other,  and  also  subject  to  the  re¬ 
spective  regulations  of  said  Churches,  shall  be  eligible  to  a  pastoral  charge  in 
either. 

“  Article  IV.  Communicants  of  either  Church  shall  be  received  to  the  other 
on  presentation  of  Letters  of  Dismissal. 

“  Article  V.  Missionary  or  other  congregations  of  either  Church  may  transfer 
their  connection  to  the  other  on  such  terms  as  may  be  mutually  agreed  upon. 

“  Article  VI.  The  two  Churches,  recognizing  the  fact  that  they  are  working 
together  in  the  same  great  cause,  and  on  the  same  basis,  pledge  each  to  the  other 
their  mutual  co-operation,  sympathy,  and  support. 

(16)  With  respect  to  this  Union.  On  the  day  that  these  resolutions  were 
adopted,  an  English  gentleman  said  :  “You  have  made  a  great  mistake.  I  know  all 
about  that  Church.  It  is  very  weak,  and  contains  very  few  Episcopalians.  They 
are  almost  exclusively  Methodists  of  the  Countess  of  Huntingdon  Connection. 

_  m 

There  will  probably  be  a  large  number  leaving  the  Establishment,  and  they  have 
such  a  bitter  feeling  towards  the  Free  Church,  that  if  you  associate  with  them, 
the  others  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  you.”  I  answered :  “  There  is  no  organic 
union.  Each  Church  acts  independently  of  the  other.  I  would  advocate  the  same  ar¬ 
rangement  with  any  Evangelical  Church,  whether  coming  out  of  the  Establish¬ 
ment  or  not.  There  is  nothing  contained  in  our  Articles  of  Union  that  is  not  an 
established  principle  of  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  our  Church,  except  the 
principle  that  in  case  of  union,  one  Church  will  not  receive  an  organized  parish,  as 
an  organization  (with  its  property)  without  all  consent  to  the  change.  If  those  in 
the  Establishment  are  as  bigoted  as  you  think,  it  would  make  no  difference  in  my 
action.  I  am  not  willing  to  abandon  our  liberal  principles  to  please  their  bigotry. 
And  besides,  it  may  be  that  those  from  the  Establishment  may  in  like  manner  form 
a  federative  union  with  us,  and  we  may  be  the  means  of  bridging  over  the  gulf  be¬ 
tween  them,  and  of  bringing  them  into  friendly  relations  with  each  other.” 
(xv.  13,  14.) 

REFORMED  (DUTCH)  CHURCH. 

(17)  This  Church,  in  Holland,  suffered  more  for  the  cause  of  Protestantism  than 
any  other  Church  in  any  other  county.  That,  and  its  descendant  in  this  country, 
have  always  been  intensely  Protestant,  and  as  liberal  as  Protestant.  They  furnished 
a  refuge  for  the  Protestant  refugees  from  England  in  the  time  of  Mary ;  for  the 
Episcopal  refugees  in  the  days  of  Cromwell,  and  for  the  Puritan  refugees  on  the 
restoration  of  Prelacy.  In  this  country  they  acted  in  the  same  liberal  manner 
toward  the  newly-arrived  Church  of  England,  and  its  successor,  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  had 
intimate  relations  with  both  (xii.  27,  28).  But  of  late  the  Apostolic  dogma  has  con¬ 
verted  the  once  liberal  P.  E.  C.  into  a  schism  or  caste,  which  cuts  itself  off  from  all 
who  do  not  belong  to  that  caste,  and  the  Dutch  Church  is  now  called  a  “  Dissenter’’ 
by  the  High  Church  Episcopalian,  (iii.  Dec.  4,  1873,  Exclu.;  xv.  19.) 

(18)  This  Church,  true  to  its  antecedents,  has  been  the  first  in  this  country  to 
welcome  the  new  Church  among  the  brotherhood  of  Protestants,  and  records  the 
following  in  the  “  Acts  and  proceedings  of  the  68tli  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed 
Church  in  America,  convened  in  Regular  Session  in  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.,  June, 
1874,”  viz. ;  “  By  a  vote  of  the  Synod,  the  Committee  on  Correspondence  was  in- 


CHAPTER  XV. 


173 


18th  Section. 

structed  to  bring  in  a  resolution,  witli  the  view  to  open  a  correspondence  witli  the 
Reformed  Episcopal  Church  ”  (p.  4G). 

“  Your  Committee  has  been  instructed  to  submit  a  resolution  with  a  view  to 
opening  a  correspondence  with  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  in  America;  accord¬ 
ingly  the  following  is  proposed  for  the  action  of  the  Synod : 

“  Resolved,  That  this  Synod  expresses  cordial  sympathy  with  the  efforts  of  the 
Reformed  Episcopal  Church  to  establish  and  perpetuate  a  pure  and  spiritual  wor¬ 
ship,  and  recognizes  with  pleasure  the  ministry  and  membership  of  that  Church, 
as  forming  with  ourselves  and  all  our  brethren  of  Christ’s  household,  a  part  of  the 
true  Church  of  God  upon  earth. 

“  Resolved,  That  to  express  this  feeling  more  strongly,  the  Synod  will  appoint, 
at  this  session,  a  Delegate  to  convey  to  the  Convention  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church  our  Christian  salutations,  and  that  our  Delegates  suggest  the  expediency 
of  an  annual  correspondence,  by  delegates,  between  that  Convention  and  this  Synod. 
Respectfully  submitted,  Ph.  Peltz,  Chairman.”  (Page  61). 

“  Delegates  to  Corresponding  Bodies. . . .  To  the  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church:  Rev.  Alex.  R.  Thompson,  Primarius ;  Rev.  John  Gaston, 
Secundus.  ” 

The  list  of  Clergy  gives,  "Thompson,  Alexander  R.,  D.D.,  180  Clermont  Ave., 
Brooklyn,  N.Y.,”  and  “  Gaston,  John,  D.D.,  Passaic,  KJ.” . ix.  10. 

(19)  “  Dissenters  ”  is  used  with  propriety  in  England  as  applied  to  all  who  do 

not  belong  to  “  The  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established.  ”  In 
former  days  this  term  had  a  dreadful  significance,  to  the  extent  of  forfeiting  liberty 
and  even  life  (xii.  15  to  17).  At  the  present  time  the  Church  of  England  is  the 
political  Church,  sustained  by  the  State,  and  Dissenters  are  only  tolerated  (xii.  21 
to  24).  Hence,  when  a  member  of  the  P.  E.  C.  calls  others  “  Dissenters,”  he  prac¬ 
tically  claims  for  his  small  denomination  the  supremacy  over  all  the  other  denomina¬ 
tions  in  this  country . xiii.  10^. 

(20)  In  my  letter  (i.  Oct.  80,  1873)  I  said,  in  objection  to  this  expression:  “  The 
Dutch  Church  in  Holland,  and  the  German  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Churches  in 
Germany,  and  the  Waldenses  and  the  Calvinists  in  Switzerland,  and  their  branches 
in  other  countries,  no  more  dissent  from  us  than  wre  from  them.  The  term,  as  used 
in  this  country,  is  a  nick-name  without  historical  accuracy.” 

(21,  22).  Substitute  (xvi.  19  to  25). 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


OFFICIAL  DECISION  OF  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  IN  1846. 


Contents: — (1).  Personal  antecedents. — (2).  Basis  of  the  decision.— 
(3).  The  Apostles  had  no  successors. — (4).  The  “  Fathers  ”  are  not  authority. 
— (5).  As  3d. — (6).  “  Lo,  I  am  with  you!'1'1  does  not  require  the  u Succes¬ 
sion. ” — (7).  Nor  does  “  Called  of  God  as  ivas  Aaron.” — (8).  Nor  “  How  can 
they  preach  except  they  be  sent.” — (9).  Titus  and  Timothy  were  not  Bishops. 
— (10).  Nor  the  plural  “  angels  ”  of  Smyrna  a  Bishop. — (11).  “  Obey  them 
that  have  the  rule  over  you,”  does  not  require  the  “  Succession.” — (12).  The 
directions  to  Titus  are  not  laid  down  as  general  laws. — (13).  Deacons  to 
“  serve  tables ,”  preach,  and  baptize. — (14).  Laying  on  of  hands  upon  Paul 
when  already  an  Apostle. — (15).  Directions  to  laymen  when  preaching  and 
prophesying. — (16).  Ananias  was  a  layman. — (17).  St.  Paul  denies  that  he 
received  his  office  from  man. — (18).  Foot-note  as  to  St.  Paul. — (19).  The 
Bible  the  only  authority. — (20).  We  are  not  to  be  chained  fast  to  corruption. 
(21).  Who,  then,  form  the  Catholic  Church  f — (22.)  We  are  bound  to  belong 
to  some  denomination. — (23).  I  prefer  the  Episcopal. — (24).  No  evil  from 
the  “ Multitude  of  sects.” — (25).  You  have  not  convinced  me. — (26).  This  is 
for  practical  purposes,  not  for  discussion. — (27).  Objectionable  preaching 
by  others. — (28).  Federative  union  desirable. — (29).  The  only  difference  be¬ 
tween  us  is  Theoretical. — (30).  Dr.  Wainwright  decides  that  11  there  is  noth¬ 
ing  [in  the  above]  that  would  prevent  the  most  perfect  fellowship  with  our 
Church.” 

1st  Section. 

(1)  Personal  Antecedents.  Born  in  tlie  City  of  New  York,  Sept.  28,  1804,  I 
occupied  tlie  same  pew,  No.  14,  in  St.  John’s  Church,  New  York,  from  1817  until 
1849,  when  I  moved  to  Passaic,  N.  J.,  except  only  occasionally  from  1827,  when  I 
commenced  civil  engineering,  up  to  1844,  when  I  retired  from  business.  In  1846  I 
determined  to  join  some  Church,  and  wrote  the  following  Treatise  (xvi.  3  to  24) 
and  letter  (xvi.  25  to  29)  and  left  them  with  the  Rev.  J.  M.  Wainwright,  D.D. 
(subsequently  Bishop  of  New  York)  for  his  examination,  and  received  his  official 
decision  (xvi.  30).  As  assistant  minister  of  Trinity  Church,  in  especial  charge  of 
St.  John’s  Church,  he  was  practically  my  Rector,  and  upon  the  basis  of  his  decision 
I  joined  the  P.  E.  C.  after  several  years’  hesitation  on  account  of  the  schisms  in  the 
P.  E.  C.  This  is  the  Church  of  my  father’s  paternal  ancestors  in  England  as  far  as 
I  have  examined  the  parish  records  in  Upton-on-Severn,  and  in  Newent ;  with  one 
of  precisely  my  own  name,  who  in  1715  gives  his  official  position  in  the  Church  of 
England  as  “  S.S.E.M.”  i.  e.  :  Sacro  Sancti  Ecclesiae  Minister.  It  is  the  Church  of 
(174) 


-  CHAPTER  XVI. 


175 


1st  Section. 

my  mother’s  mother,  coming  through  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  during  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Revolution.  I  have  learned  the  New  York  traditions  coming  through  the 
Holland  branch  of  my  ancestors  since  1658,  and  through  the  Huguenot  branch  in 
New  York  since  the  Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  in  1685.  (xii.  27,  28.) 

(2)  Basis  of  the  Decision.  At  a  New  England  dinner,  the  orator  of  the  day 

said  that  the  Puritans  came  to  this  country  to  enjoy  “  A  Government  without  a 
King  and  a  Church  without  a  Bishop.”  Dr.  Wain wright  said :  “  There  can  be  no 

Church  without  a  Bishop.”  This  led  to  discussions  on  this  point  between  Dr. 
Wain  wright,  High  Church  Episcopalian,  and  Dr.  Potts,  High  Church  Presbyterian. 
These  discussions  appearing  in  the  public  prints  were  collected  in  pamphlet  form. 
I  took  up  this  pamphlet  in  1846,  and  objected  seriatim  to  all  the  High  Church  po¬ 
sitions  of  my  Rector,  and  gave  my  own  interpretations  of  his  texts,  and  brought 
other  texts  to  sustain  my  position.  In  answer  to  my  leading  question,  “  Of  whom 
is  the  Catholic  Church  constituted  ?  ”  as  now  copied  from  the  originals,  with  the 
present  addition  of  references.  The  positions  here  taken  in  1846  have  never  been 
abandoned  (xii.  50;  xi.  2;  xiv.  11.) 

OF  WHOM  IS  THE  CATHOLIC  CHUBCH  CONSTITUTED  ? 

(3)  The  Apostles  were  especially  chosen  by  Christ  to  attend  Him  in  person.  To 
them  alone  did  He  commit  His  athority  to  establish  His  Church.  We  find  no  such 
expressions  as  “Successors  of  the  Apostles  ”  any  where  in  the  Bible ,  as  far  as  I 
know;  and  even  if  so,  we  find  none  to  whom  Apostolic  authority  was  given. 
Therefore  in  matters  of  faith,  we  cannot  go  beyond  the  Gospels  to  find  the  account 
of  the  immediate  directions  of  Christ,  and  the  subsequent  books  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  for  the  actions  and  directions  of  the  Apostles.  What  is  not  there  found,  is 
not  authority.  What  is  there  found  is  the  supreme  law,  to  be  taken  as  a  whole,  as 
it  stands  ;  to  be  interpreted  by  the  same  rules  that  apply  to  any  other  legal  docu¬ 
ment,  and  not  to  be  forced  from  its  obvious  meaning  to  gratify  passion,  prejudice, 
or  preconceived  opinion  as  to  what  we  may  imagine  the  law  ought  to  be. 

(4)  The  Fathers  as  they  are  called  (and  I  think  improperly,  since  that  title  prop¬ 
erly  belongs  only  to  Christ,  or  at  farthest  only  to  the  Apostles),  have  no  author¬ 
ity  to  decide  questions.  They  formed  their  opinions  as  we  form  ours,  except  that 
they  received  orally  what  we  receive  in  print.  They  were  as  liable  to  error  as  we 
are.  They  taught  very  different  doctrines,  and  hence  if  we'  undertake  to  discrimi¬ 
nate  and  to  reject  some,  while  we  take  others,  the  whole  idea  ot  authority  must  be 
abandoned.  Even  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  we  find  some  of  the  Fathers  con¬ 
demned  by  the  Apostles  themselves.  (2  Peter  2 — 1  to  22,  and  1  John  2 — 18)  (xii.  8). 

(5)  “  Successors  of  the  Apostles  ”  are  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  and  hence 
a  fair  inference  that  there  were  none.  But  farther  than  this,  they  could  have  no 
successors  in  the  sense  in  which  we  use  that  term.  Matthias  was  chosen  by  lot  to 
fill  the  place  of  Judas,  as  one  who  had  been  with  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  from  the 
beginning,  to  be  a  witness  of  the  resurrection  (Acts  1 : 21,  22),  and  he  was  with  them 
at  the  feast  of  Pentecost.  In  the  next  place  we  find  St.  Paul  claiming  to  be  an 
Apostle  on  the  ground  of  having  seen  Jesus  (1  Cor.  9  :  1)  and  again  (1  Cor.  15  :  8,  9) 
We  cannot  now  have  Apostles  without  a  miracle,  since  the  revelation  to  them  was 
by  the  spirit  (Tim.  1:1;  Eph.  3:5)  and,  still  stronger,  St.  Paul  shows  that  man 
could  not  ordain  Apostles  (Gal.  1  : 1  and  11,  12,  etc.)  Taken  in  connection  with  the 


176 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


5th.  Section. 

above,  the  expression,  “  For  I  think  that  God  hath  set  forth  us  the  Apostles  last  ” 
(1  Cor.  4  :  9)  looks  to  the  same  point.  Therefore,  since  to  be  an  Apostle  required 
the  person  to  have  seen  Christ,  and  as  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  15 : 8)  tells  us  that  he  was 
the  last,  the  consequence  is  necessary  that  the  Apostles  had  no  successors. 

(6)  But  the  promise  (Mat.  18  :  20)  “  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always  even  to  the  end  of 
the  world”  is  taken  to  prove  that  the  Apostles  must  necessarily  have  Apostolic  suc¬ 
cessors,  because  they  themselves  are  dead  while  the  promise  remains.  Why  restrict 
the  promise  to  a  particular  class  of  men?  The  same  promise,  or  to  the  same  effect^ 
was  repeatedly  made  to  all  who  believe  in  Christ.  Why,  then,  infer  the  necessity 
of  a  particular  class  in  order  to  find  recipients  for  this  promise  when  the  promise, 
even  by  itself,  can  with  equal  propriety  be  understood  as  applying  to  the  whole 
Christian  Church,  and  when  taken  in  connection  with  other  passages  (quoted  and 
to  be  quoted)  does,  in  my  opinion,  decidedly  apply  to  what  we  know  is  certainly  in 
existence  ? 

Under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  the  priesthood  was  established  in  a  precise 
hereditary  line.  All  the  details  of  the  temple,  the  service,  the  sacrifices,  and  every 
point  connected  with  the  ceremonies,  were  specifically  appointed.  Now  Christ  came 
to  fulfil  the  Law.  These  points  were,  therefore,  to  be  set  aside,  and  others  substi¬ 
tuted  for  them  ;  or  else  the  spirit  of  the  law  was  to  be  made  manifest,  and  the 
mode  of  carrying  it  into  effect  left  to  the  judgment  of  man,  who  might  thereby  vary 
the  details,  so  as  to  suit  his  varying  circumstances.  If  a  substitute  has  been  ap¬ 
pointed,  we  may,  by  a  fair  inference,  suppose  that  coming  from  the  same  source  it 
must  be  set  forth  as  distinctly  as  the  original  institution  it  was  to  supersede. 

The  hereditary  priesthood,  the  temple  service,  and  the  ceremonies  under  the  Mo¬ 
saic  dispensation  have  been  set  aside,  and  where  do  we  find  the  substitutes  ?  In 
place  of  the  types  and  figures,  cherubim  and  seraphim,  breastplate,  bells,  temple, 
hereditary  priesthood,  circumcision,  offering  of  vegetables,  meat,  etc.,  included  in  a 
system  that  was  exclusive,  and  applicable  only  to  one  district  and  one  people,  and 
acting  upon  them  as  a  nation ,  we  have  a  system  explicitly  intended  for  the  whole 
world,  in  every  climate  and  under  all  circumstances,  constantly  directed  to  the  in¬ 
dividual,  directing  the  inward  action  of  the  mind  of  man,  his  practical  duty  to  God 
and  his  neighbor,  faith,  hope,  charity,  a  belief  in  Christ,  baptism  and  repentance 
as  the  end  and  aim  of  the  ceremonial  law.  Those  who  followed  these  directions 
formed  “  The  Church  ”  (Acts  15:4;  1  Cor.  1:2;  Col.  1 : 18).  This  Church  was  the 
fruit  of  the  personal  teaching  of  Christ,  and  also  of  His  chosen  Apostles,  who 
taught  and  recorded  what  they  heard  and  saw  as  witnesses  (Luke  24  :  48). 

Now,  this  Church  is  to  extend  to  the  ends  of  the  world,  and  consequently  re¬ 
quires  means.  Some  maintain  that  this  can  only  be  through  a  ministry  regularly 
commissioned  and  descended  from  the  Apostles  themselves  by  the  imposition  of 
hands.  Now  we  find  denominations  of  Christians  who  do  not  lay  claim  to  such 
succession,  producing  all  the  practical  benefits  of  the  best  of  those  who  do  claim 
this  succession,  and  “  by  their  fruit  ye  shall  know  them.”  But  further  :  There  is 
no  mention  made  of  successors  of  the  Apostles,  nor  that  the  imposition  of  hands  is 
necessary  to  continue  the  ministry,  and  when  so  much  stress  is  laid  upon  this  ne¬ 
cessity,  I  think  that  the  testimony  should  be  very  explicit  as  it  is  respecting  all 
the  ceremonies  of  the  old  dispensation.”  (xv.) 

(7)  “  Called  of  God  as  was  Aaron.”  (Heb.  5  : 4)  is  taken  to  prove  the  divine 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


177 


7tli  Section. 

authority  of  the  ministry.  But  this  refers  solely  to  Christ ,  and  not  at  all  to  the 
ministry.  Again,  for  the  same  purpose,  the  term  Ambassadors  is  used  (Rom.  10 : 14, 
15;  1  Cor.  4 : 1;  2  Cor.  5  :  20),  but  these  all  refer  solely  to  the  Apostles. 

(8)  “  How  can  they  preach  except  they  be  sent  ”  (Rom.  10 : 14, 15),  is,  in  my 
opinion,  one  of  the  strongest  passages  in  support  of  this  doctrine.  But  it  is  not  con¬ 
clusive  in  itself  without  being  sustained  by  something  more  explicit.  This  was 
written  in  the  midst  of  Jews  and  heathen.  The  Apostles  were  still  exercising  their 
office.  They  had  not  completed  the  duty  assigned  to  them.  And  supposing  the 
fullest  extent  be  given  to  the  expression  as  applied  to  those  days,  it  does  not  neces¬ 
sarily  apply  to  those  succeeding  the  Apostolic  age. 

(9)  Titus  and  Timothy  are  given  as  instances  of  successors  of  St.  Paul  or 
Bishops,  according  to  the  modern  acceptation  of  the  term.  But  I  find  them  rather 
the  assistants  of  St.  Paul,  acting  constantly  under  his  direction,  than  Bishops  or 
heads  of  the  Church. 

(10)  The  Seven  Angels  of  the  Churches  of  Asia  are  given  as  cases  of  Bishops. 
These  seven  churches  occupied  a  space  in  Asia  about  one-tentli  of  the  extent  of  the 
State  of  New  York.  Consequently,  at  the  same  rate,  New  York  would  require  70 
Bishops.  This,  however,  is  not  conclusive,  but  when  we  find  the  Angel  of  Smyrna 
addressed  in  the  plural  “  some  of  you,”  etc. ,  it  is  very  evident  that  it  cannot  signify 
Bishop. 

(11)  The  succession  of  the  Ministry  is  again  founded  on  the  expression  (Heb. 

13 : 17),  “  Obey  them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves ,  for  they 
watch  for.  your  souls  as  they  that  must  give  account .”  But  this  proves  nothing  about 
succession.  Order,  system,  rule,  both  civil  and  religious,  are  matters  of  conscience 
and  religion.  “  The  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.”  Consequently,  no  dis¬ 
regard  of  established  rules,  no  factious  or  unnecessary  opposition  to  rulers  or  pre¬ 
siding  officers,  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  elected,  appointed,  or  hereditary,  can 
be  indulged  in  without  a  wrong.  But  take  this  expression  in  its  most  restricted 
sense.  How  did  these  men  obtain  the  rule  ?  It  may  have  been  in  the  same  man¬ 
ner  as  our  president,  governors,  or  other  officers.  It  may  have  been  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Deacons,  where  the  people  chose  and  the  Apostles  laid  their  hands  upon 
them.  Or,  they  may  have  been  immediately  appointed  by  St.  Paul  himself.  The 
last,  I  suppose,  most  probable  in  the  then  condition  of  the  Church.  But,  as  we  are 
not  informed,  it  is  evident  that  it  was  not  considered  important.  It  certainly  proves 
nothing  in  favor  of  succession . .xii.  24. 

Again :  The  case  of  St.  Barnabas  is  cited  as  a  proof  of  succession.  But  (Acts 
9:27;  13:1;  11 :  24)  we  find  that  he  was  “  separate  ”  by  the  express  direction  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  accompany  St.  Paul  on  a  missionary  enterprise,  not  to  succeed  him 
in  office.  Moreover,  I  suppose  that  he  was  one  of  the  two  from  whom  Matthias 
was  chosen  to  be  an  Apostle. 

(12)  Again :  The  directions  given  to  Titus,  I  think  one  of  the  strongest  points. 
In  general  terms,  I  should  say  that  at  this  time  Christianity  could  only  be  taught 
orally.  But,  carrying  our  observation  farther,  we  find  no  general  directions  from 
St.  Paul  to  govern  others,  or  under  other  circumstances.  He  does  not  lay  down 
this  as  a  general  law.  He  does  not  inform  us  how  he  proceeded  in  other  cases. 
There  is  no  general  action  on  the  subject  in  a  Council  of  the  Apostles,  as  we  might 
expect,  if  they  considered  it  important,  nor  do  we  even  find  any  allusion  to  succes¬ 
sion  by  any  other  of  the  Apostles. 


178 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


12th  Section. 

Hence,  as  the  Apostles  were  all  Jews,  and  familiar  with  the  ceremonies  of  the 
old  dispensation,  their  neglect  to  make  any  distinct  and  explicit  arrangement  for 
the  succession  of  the  ministry  under  the  new  dispensation,  is  a  strong-  proof, 
although  negative,  that  such  succession  never  was  intended  as  is  now  maintained, 
especially  when  we  find  minor  points  of  form  attended  to  —  such  as  directions 
respecting  men  and  women  prophesying  and  preaching,  as  to  their  dress,  etc. 
(1  Cor.  11). 

(13)  But  in  place  of  finding  authority  for  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  succession, 
I  think  we  can  find  directly  the  contrary  in  the  case  of  the  Deacons  (Acts  6: 1-5). 
Seven  Deacons  were  chosen  by  the  people  “  to  serve  tables ”  because  it  was  not  rea¬ 
sonable  that  the  Apostles  should  “  leave  the  word  of  God  ”  for  that  purpose.  Being 
thus  chosen,  the  Apostles  laid  their  hands  on  them. 

(14)  What  was  intended  by  laying  on  of  hands  ?  Acts  13  :  3  shows  that  it  was 
not  always  an  ordination  or  communication  of  clerical  authority,  since  St.  Paul  was 
already  an  Apostle.  It  was  then,  at  times,  something  different.  This  may  have 
been  nothing  more  than  a  public  recognition  or  testimonial  of  their  appointment; 
but  it  was  probably  something  more.  Still,  granting  the  greatest  stress  to  tire  lay¬ 
ing  on  of  hands,  it  was  only  to  “  serve  tables,”  and  if  we  imagine,  in  the  absence  of 
proof,  that  it  was  for  anything  else,  we  are  going  beyond  the  record,  and  substitut¬ 
ing  opinion  for  fact.  Now,  we  find  Stephen  preaching  (Acts  6 :  10,  7),  and  Philip 
preaching  and  baptizing  (Act  8  : 12,  etc.)  Hence  the  conclusion  that  it  required  no 
especial  ordination  to  authorize  men  to  preach  and  to  initiate  others  into  the  Church. 
And  that  this  example  might  not  be  lost  in  after  ages,  it  was  done  in  the  very  days 
of  the  Apostles,  and  the  circumstances  related  along  with  the  acts  of  the  Apostles 
in  terms  of  approbation  (xv.  17). 

(15)  Again  (1  Cor.  11)  we  find  particular  directions  given  to  people  respecting  their 
conduct  in  church,  as  to  men  and  women  preaching  and  prophesying  with  heads 
covered  ;  as  to  the  Sacrament  and  their  manners  at  it,  etc.  Now,  we  cannot  sup¬ 
pose  that  all  these  men  and  women  were  ordained  to  act  in  the  ministry. 

(1G)  Again  (Acts  9 :  10  and  17)  we  have  the  case  of  Ananias,  a  “  certain  disciple,” 
■who,  “  putting  his  hands  on  ”  Saul,  Saul  received  his  sight  “  forthwith,  and  arose 
and  was  baptized.”  Now,  we  hear  nothing  of  Ananias  having  been  ordained,  or 
having  received  any  special  authority  to  act  in  the  ministry,  and  from  the  manner 
in  which  his  name  is  introduced,  “  a  certain  disciple,”  we  have  no  right  to  suppose 
he  was  anything  more  than  an  obscure  layman. 

(17)  But  more  than  this,  St.  Paul  tells  us  (Gal.  1 :  12,  16,  17)  that  he  did  not  re¬ 
ceive  the  Gospel  from  man,  nor  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  those  that  were  Apostles 
before  him,  but  acted  as  an  Apostle  for  three  years  before  he  saw  any  of  the  other 
Apostles.  Here  then  we  have  the  strongest  possible  case  against  the  necessity  of  a 
succession,  when  we  find  a  layman,  by  the  express  command  of  the  Lord,  putting 
his  hands  on  Saul  that  he  might  receive  his  sight,  and  without  any  such  command 
baptizing  him  who  was  a  chosen  vessel,  and  recognized  by  the  other  Apostles  as 
one  of  their  number.* 

(18)  *  “  It  appears  to  me  very  remarkable  that  those  who  maintain  the  necessity  of  Apostolic  Suc¬ 
cessors,  to  receive  the  promise,  “  Lo  I  am  with  you  to  the  end  of  the  world,”  should  depend  for  the 
proof  on  the  authority  of  St.  Paul,  v»rho  at  the  time  the  promise  was  made  was  not  only  not  one 
of  those  to  whom  it  was  personally  addressed,  but  was  then  an  open  and  bitter  enemy  of  the 


CHAPTER  XYI. 


179 


19th.  Section. 

(19)  If  the  above  views  are  correct,  as  I  think  they  are,  we  have  only  to  look  to 

the  Bible  itself  to  ascertain  whether  any  denomination  forms  part  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  We  are  not  obliged  to  depend  upon  any  doubtful  or  controverted  testi¬ 
mony  as  to  succession  through  long  ages  of  darkness,  confusion,  and  superstition. 
We  are  not  bound  to  adhere  to  those  who  act  in  opposition  to  the  dictates  of  the 
Bible  upon  the  ground  that  they  only  have  authority  to  form  and  regulate  the 
Church.  But  when  we  find  grievous  errors  in  the  Church  ;  “the  law  of  God  ren¬ 
dered  of  none  effect  by  tradition,”  and  opposition  to  real  piety  in  those  who  should 
lead  the  way,  while  they  keep  others  in  bondage  by  their  exclusive  claims,  for  their 
own  emolument  or  self-importance  ;  then,  as  in  the  days  of  the  Reformation, 
taking  the  New  Testament  as  the  charter  “  whereby  Christ  hath  made  us  free,”  we 
have  a  Scriptural  right  to  protest  against  error,  however  ancient,  and  coming  back 
to  first  principles  as  laid  down  in  revelation,  to  form  a  new  association  of  Christians, 
either  under  the  old  form  as  to  externals  or  any  other  that  appears  better  suited  to 
advance  the  one  grand  object  of  vital  piety . xi.  2;  xii.  8. 

(20)  Nor  are  we  bound  to  remain  amidst  corruption,  and  wait  until  one  of  those 
having  authority  shall  see  fit  to  join  with  the  protestants,  but  in  the  absence  of 
orders  to  the  contrary,  and  with  the  example  of  the  Beacons  and  of  Ananias  before 
us,  we  have  the  right  to  form  a  community,  without  including  one  of  those  who  be¬ 
lieve  that  they  have  exclusive  authority,  without  being  able,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  to 
produce  proof  that  such  authority  was  committed  to  them,  or  to  any  one  else,  since 
the  days  of  the  Apostles. 

(21)  Who,  then,  form  the  Catholic  Church  ?  Those  that  believe  and  are  baptized 

(Mark  16:  16) ;  those  “  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,  with  all 
that  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ”  (Cor.  1  :  2).  Of  this,  “  Christ  is  the 
head  of  the  Church,  who  is  the  beginning,  the  first-born  from  the  dead  ”  (Col.  1  :18). 
This  Church,  having  many  branches,  still  forms  but  one  Catholic  Church.  To 
exemplify  this  unity,  we  may  refer  to  our  own  political  government.  We  have  the 
one  grand  law  or  constitution  of  the  Union,  to  which  all  must  submit,  as  all  Christians 
to  the  one  grand  constitution  of  Christianity — the  Bible.  Under  these  constitu¬ 
tions,  each  separate  community  is  at  liberty  to  regulate  the  details  of  its  separate 
organization,  so  as  not  to  conflict  with  the  supreme  law,  and  as  long  as  they  obey 
the  supreme  law  they  form  members  of  the  general  union.  If,  however,  they 
deviate  from  this  law,  they  forfeit  their  ciaim  to  the  title  of  members . xi.  2. 

(22)  Now,  we  are  ordered  not  to  neglect  assembling  ourselves  together.  Con¬ 
sequently  we  are  bound  to  form  congregations,  and  consequently  to  become  mem¬ 
bers  of  some  congregation,  independently  of  considerations  upon  general  principles, 
which  show  the  important  effects  of  association  and  organization  to  advance  any 

Christians.  Nor  did  he  succeed  one  of  them,  or  claim  to  he  a  successor,  hut  expressly  disclaimed 
it  for  himself,  and  asserted  that  man  could  not  give  it.  Thus,  in  the  year  A.D.  33,  the  promise 
was  made  (Mat.  28  :  20);  A.D.  33,  Saul  at  the  stoning  of  Stephen  (Acts  7 :  58,  8-1),  A.D.  34,  Saul 
persecutes  the  Christians  (Acts  8  :  3).  A.D.  35,  Saul  converted  (Acts  9 :  10  to  18),  and  preaches  im¬ 
mediately  (Acts  9  :  20 );  A.D.  38,  Paul  first  Avent  to  Jerusalem,  and  saw  only  Peter  and  James,  for 
only  15  days  (Gal.  1:  18);  A.D.  45,  Paul  and  Barnabas  sent  forth;  imposition  of  hands  (Acts  13:  1 
to  3);  A.D.  51,  they  go  to  the  first  Council  of  the  Apostles  (Acts  15  :  1  to  30);  A.  D.  58,  Paul  says 
that  he  is  “  an  apostle  (not  of  men  neither  by  men,”  etc.)  Gal.  1  :  1—). 

This  note  is  on  a  reverse  page  of  the  original,  with  the  remark  :  “  This  was  not  included  in  the 
paper  seen  by  D'r.  Wain wright ;  it  was  a  subsequent  thought,  but  about  the  same  date.” 


180 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


22d  Section. 

! 

common  object,  and  Christians  are  bound  to  use  all  endeavors  to  advance  the  cause 
of  Christianity . . . ix.  3. 

(23)  As  to  the  particular  denomination,  each  one  must  judge  for  himself,  and  he 

is  bound  to  do  so.  If  he  conscientiously  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  one  denomi¬ 
nation  only  is  correct,  he  is  bound  to  join  with  that  one.  If,  on  the  contrary,  he 
believes  that  there  are  several  equally  right  in  essentials,  he  is  at  liberty  to  choose 
that  which  best  suits  his  peculiar  views,  or  even  habits  or  feelings,  holding  at  all 
times  in  view  the  object  of  the  association.  This  latter  is  my  own  case.  I  prefer 
the  Episcopalians  because  they  do  not  insist  upon  the  same  rigid  uniformity  on 
certain  doctrinal  “  points  which  God  has  left  at  large,”  as  some  of  the  other  denom¬ 
inations.  I  prefer  the  Common  Prayer  Book  to  extemporaneous  prayers,  because 
I  am  sure  of  having  a  large  proportion  of  the  service  excellent,  whoever  may  be 
the  officiating  clergyman.  And  it  may  be  that  I  prefer  it  from  habit.  But  whatever 
be  the  real  ground  of  preference,  I  hold  that  preference  to  be  justifiable,  because  I 
am  satisfied  that  as  a  denomination  they  are  correct,  although  I  do  not  agree  with 
some  of  our  most  estimable  clergymen  on  the  point  of  succession,  and  at  times  hear 
remarks  from  others  that  grate  upon  the  ear  like  the  expression  of  the  Pharisee  to¬ 
ward  the  Publican.  At  the  same  time  there  are  several  other  denominations  or 
sects  (for  I  consider  the  Episcopalian  as  much  a  sect  as  any  other)  that,  holding  to 
the  orthodox  faith,  and  the  truth  as  I  see  it  laid  down  in  the  Bible,  are  in  my 
opinion  quite  as  good  as  the  Episcopalian  for  those  who  prefer  them ;  and  holding 
these  views,  I  am  desirous  of  seeing  them  prosper — and  if  need  be,  helping  them 
as  I  have  done — as  the  denomination  that  I  prefer  for  myself. . ix.  3. 

(24)  I  see  no  evil  arising  from  the  “  Multitude  of  Sects.”  Nothing  comes  by 
chance.  The  promise  still  holds  good :  “  Lo,  I  am  with  you  to  the  end  of  the 
world.”  The  Church  Catholic  is  under  the  guidance  of  the  Almighty.  Better 
that  we  should  have  a  multitude  of  sects,  each  striving  for  the  truth,  and  actually 
maintaining  the  truth  in  one  of  its  forms,  with  the  only  error  that  they  believe 
themselves  exclusively  right,  than  introduce  the  inactivity  and  practical  sloth  in 
religion  that  would  follow  the  union  of  all  into  one  denomination.  Better  that 
those  who  deny  the  truth  and  maintain  vital  error  should  stand  by  themselves  and 
proclaim  their  views,  that  others  may  see  in  them  the  same  doctrines  condemned 
by  the  Apostles,  and  be  incited  by  the  knowledge  of  the  danger,  to  guard  the 
unwary  from  following  in  their  footsteps,  than  by  an  outward  conformity  to 
remain  as  a  secret  sore,  festering  and  spreading  its  poison  through  the  constitu¬ 
tion.  (xv.  21.) 

,  [Copy  of  the  letter  to  Rev.  J.  M.  Wcdnwright,  dated  New  York ,  Feb.  8,  1846.] 

(25)  “  The  enclosed  communication  will  give  you  my  views  on  the  subject  of 
Apostolic  Succession.  I  have  read  your  arguments  in  favor  of  its  existence  and 

necessity,  and  I  have  read  other  productions  on  the  same  subject,  and  my  con¬ 
clusions  are  the  reverse  of  those  which  you  have  deduced  from  the  same  source. 

“  I  freely  grant  that  as  to  your  opinions  and  my  own  on  any  theological  point 
where  we  differ,  a  third  person  would  be  much  safer  in  following  you  than  me  ; 
especially  since  I  believe  that  the  Succession  is  the  only  question  upon  which  I 
dissent  from  your  views.  In  other  respects  I  have  been  struck  with  the  remarkable 
harmony  of  our  views,  and  on  some  points  have  been  much  gratified  in  finding 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


181 


25th.  Section. 

myself  sustained  against  the  opinions  of  others,  by  simple  matter-of-fact  argument 
and  close  reasoning  from  the  only  data  that  we  have,  without  indulging  in  flights 
of  poetical  imagination  and  supposition,  to  fill  up  those  blanks  where  revelation 
has  left  us  in  ignorance. 

“  Still  I  must  be  bound  by  my  own  conscientious  opinions,  although  1  find  those 
opinions  opposed  by  one  whose  views  I  highly  regard,  who  having  made  theology 
a  study,  is  familiar  with  many  things  with  which  I  am  not  acquainted;  who  is 
familiar  with  all  the  passages  in  Scripture  bearing  on  important  points,  while  many 
of  the  most  opposite  may  escape  my  observation  ;  and  finally,  in  my  view  a  most 
important  consideration,  who  has  drawn  those  plain,  common-sense,  logical  conclu¬ 
sions  from  his  quotations  that  I  believe  they  have  invariably  agreed  with  my  pre¬ 
viously  formed  opinions,  or  received  my  full  assent  at  the  time  with  the  single  ex¬ 
ception  of  the  succession  of  the  ministry. 

“  The  fact  of  this  general  concurrence,  and  the  unexceptionable  manner  in  which 
on  all  other  points  your  conclusions  have  appeared  to  me  to  be  drawn,  is  almost  the 
only  thing  remaining  to  lead  me  to  doubt  whether  with  a  more  profound  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  subject  you  have  not  arrived  at  the  same  result  that  I  would  reach 
with  the  same  knowledge.  Still,  I  must  suppose  that  your  late  production  on 
this  subject  contains  all  of  importance  that  can  be  said,  and  this  has  failed  to  con¬ 
vince  me. 

(26)  “  I  leave  this  communication  for  you  to  examine  at  your  leisure,  not  as  a 
matter  of  theoretical  discussion,  but  for  practical  purposes.  I  consider  it  my  duty 
to  join  some  orthodox  denomination.  I  prefer  that  which  I  have  attended  from 
my  youth  up,  when  within  my  reach,  for  reasons  stated  in  the  communication. 
I  have  given  my  views  of  the  Succession  in  full.  My  object  is  to  learn  whether 
these  views  would  be  inconsistent  in  a  member  of  the  Episcopal  denomination, 
(xii.  38.) 

(27)  “  Whatever  may  be  the  result,  whether  I  become  a  member  of  the  Episcopa¬ 
lian  or  some  other  denomination,  I  shall  never  object  to  the  discussion  of  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  succession  as  a  matter  of  argument  and  proof,  as  you  have  done.  But  it  is 
extremely  disagreeable  to  me  to  hear  it  handled  as  I  have  on  several  occasions, 
by  other  clergymen  in  St.  John’s  Church  and  in  print,  where  the  speakers  appeared 
to  me  to  be  actuated  by  the  haughty  feelings  of  the  Pharisee,  boasting  of  their  own 
exclusive  claims,  looking  down  with  contempt  and  treating  with  contumely  and 
ridicule,  the  ‘  Multitude  of  sects  ’  that  did  not  belong  to  *  The  Church  ’  par  excel¬ 
lence,  as  if  their  ipsi  dixit  were  infallible,  in  place  of  the  Christian  humility  of  the 
Publican,  4  Lord,  have  mercy  on  me  a  sinner .’  I  object  to  no  man  holding  firmly 
to  his  own  opinions  conscientiously  formed,  and  endeavoring  with  all  his  power  to  con¬ 
vince  others  to  turn  to  what  he  believes  the  right,  and  of  vital  importance  ;  at  the 
same  time  recollecting  that  he  himself  is  but  an  erring  mortal,  and  under  this  convic¬ 
tion,  pressing  his  point  with  all  due  modesty.  But  I  do  most  strongly  object  to  all 
bigotry,  the  assumption  of  infallibility  on  controverted  points,  where  frail  man  will 
dare  to  assume  the  place  of  his  Maker,  and  pronounce  judgment  ex  cathedra,  upon 
all  who  using  the  same  freedom  as  himself,  and  being  bound  by  the  same  con¬ 
science,  come  to  a  different  conclusion.  4  Who  art  thou,  0  man,  that  judgest 
another  man’s  servant?  To  his  own  master  he  either  standeth  or  falletli.’  (xii.  8, 
34.). 


182 


CHAPTER  XYI. 


28th  Section. 

(28)  “  But  I  do  not  consider  a  scrutiny  into  the  opinions  of  members  objectionable. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  duty  of  each  denomination  to  judge  of  the  qualifications 
of  ils  own  members,  that  discord  may  be  prevented.  Those  whose  views  do  not 
harmonize  on  vital  points,  or  such  deemed  so  by  the  denomination,  ought  not  to  be 
admitted  nor  desire  admittance  as  members.  Better  for  both  that  they  should  be 
separate.  But  I  should  hail  the  day  with  joy,  that  saw  the  Catholic  Church,  not 
divided  against  itself,  as  at  present,  no  doubt  for  wise  purposes,  but  each  separate 
branch  keeping  up  such  organization  as  they  thought  would  produce  the  best  re¬ 
sults  in  their  own  case,  they  should  all  move  in  concert,  striving  to  outdo  each 
other  in  the  race  of  their  high  calling,  to  ‘  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature  ’  in 
place  of  checking  and  opposing  each  other,  giving  occasion  for  the  infidel  to  scoff, 
and  leading  the  unreflecting  to  conclude  that  religion  is  nothing  but  priestcraft, 
(iv.  3  ;  ix.  3  ;  xv.  15,  16.) 

(29)  “  I  hope  you  will  excuse  my  freedom  of  speech.  I  wish  to  give  you  my  entire 
opinion  on  these  subjects,  and  have  consequently  written  currente  calamo,  without 
stopping  to  think  whether  this  was  not  too  strong,  or  that  too  unreserved.  I  will 
close  with  this  final  remark,  that  if  in  any  part  of  the  communication  or  this  letter, 
you  should  find  any  remark  or  allusion  that  may  appear  unpleasant  to  you  as  far 
as  you  are  personally  concerned,  such  has  not  been  intended,  for  no  such  feeling 
exists.  The  only  difference  between  us  is,  in  my  view  of  the  question,  theoretical, 
and  that  question  never  brought  into  the  pulpit  in  a  manner  that  can  be  objection¬ 
able  to  any  one  who  is  not  bigoted  against  those  views.  Finally :  Whether  I  con¬ 
tinue  to  attend  St.  John’s  Church  or  go  elsewhere  ;  whether  you  consider  my  views 
vitally  objectionable  or  not,  I  shall  always  recollect  with  pleasure  the  long  time 
past,  during  which  I  have  heard  your  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  form  and 
manner  that  I  think  precisely  suited  to  the  subject.”  (xii.  38.) 

[Copy  of  the  endorsed  note  containing  the  verbal  answer  of  Iiev.  J.  M.  Wciin- 
wright,  jD.JD.] 

(30)  “  ISi.B. — The  above  letter,  inclosing  the  treatise  under  the  head  ‘Of  whom 
is  the  Catholic  Church  constituted  ?’  (or  rather  copies  of  which  these  were  the 
originals)  were  left  by  me  with  Dr.  Wain  wright.  I  called  on  him  a  few  days  after, 
and  he  said  in  answer,  ‘  I  have  read  over  your  communication  and  letter.  You 
appear  to  have  given  the  subject  a  good  deal  of  attention.  There  is  nothing  con¬ 
tained  in  either  that  would  prevent  the  most  perfect  fellowship  with  our  Church. 
There  are  many  of  our  denomination  who  think  as  you  do.  I  do  not.  There  are 
several  of  our  clergy  in  this  city  who  entertain  substantially  the  same  opinion  with 
yourself,  and  there  are  many  who  maintain  that  our  Church  was  established  with 
the  especial  view  of  meeting  these  differences  of  opinion.’  This  was  the  substance 
as  far  as  related  to  the  present  matter,  and  as  near  as  I  can  recollect,  his  very 
words.  June  8,  1846,  B.  Aycrigg.”  (xii.  38). 


Chapters  XVII.,  XVIII,  XIX.;  which,  added  to  the  edition  of  1875, 

complete  the 

MEMOIRS 


OF  THE 


tfarmelr  GfS  p  m  0  j  a  I 


AND  OF  THE 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 


WITH 


COTEMPORARY  REPORTS  RESPECTING  THESE  AND 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND, 


EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  PUBLIC  PRESS , 

ANALYZED  AND  COMPARED  WITH  PREVIOUS  HISTORY, 

Second  Edition,  with  Additions, 

BY 

BENJAMIN  AYCRIGG, 

A.B.  and  A.M.  of  Col.  Coll.,  New  York;  PH.D.  of  Penn.  Col.;  C:E. 

“  Schism  is  a  Sin  by  Apostolic  Authority 
“  Separation  from  Schism  is  a  Duty  by  Apostolic  Example  A 
“  Separation  from  his  Schism  is  Schism  according  to  each  Canonists 

Chap.  xii. 


NEW  YORK: 

PRINTED  FOR  THE  AUTHOR  BY  EDWARD  O.  JENKINS, 
20  North  William  Street, 

1876. 


/ 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


R.  E.  C.—  CHAPTERS  I.  AND  II.  .CONTINUED. 


SEE  APPENDIX,  CHAPTER  XX. 

1875. 

April  14.  Philadelphia  (Epis.  Recorder).  On  Monday,  in  Oxford  Hall,  prayers 
were  conducted  by  Rev.  Ch.  H.  Tucker,  the  minister  in  charge.  Begun  six  weeks 
ago  with  four  persons,  now  has  88  members,  a  Sunday-school  with  12  officers  and 
teachers ;  prayer-meeting  every  Wednesday.  Bishop  Cummins  explained  the 
difference  between  the  R.  E.  C.  and  the  P.  E.  C.  Proceedings  were  had  to  form  an 
organization. 

April  14.  Baltimore  (Epis.  Rec.)  The  Church  of  the  Redeemer  was  organized 
on  April  7. 

April  14.  Chicago  (Epis.  Rec.)  An  independent  German  Lutheran  Church  on 
Wentworth  Avenue  (St.  Stephen’s)  has  made  formal  application  to  be  admitted  to 
the  R.  E.  C.  (xvii.  May  12-18). 

April  14.  Louisville,  Ky.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Rev.  J.  K.  Dunn,  Pastor  of  Emmanuel 
took  charge  on  April  ll. 

April  14.  Free  Church  of  England  (Epis.  Rec.)  At  the  last  meeting  of  the 
Council,  “  it  was  moved  by  Bishop  Price,  and  seconded  by  the  Rev.  J.  Sugden,  B.A., 
and  resolved  ‘that  the  question  of  harmonizing  the  Constitutions  of  the  Free 
Church  of  England  and  the  R.  E.  C.  of  America  be  referred  to  a  committee,’  ”  etc. 

April  21.  Philadelphia  (Epis.  Rec.)  Emmanuel  Church,  Kensington.  Rev. 
Mr.  Malone,  on  his  return  from  Louisville,  found  his  residence,  837  Norris  street^ 
completely  furnished  and  a  repast  prepared. 

Also,  in  Germantown,  with  Rev.  G.  A.  Redles,  Pastor,  “  the  vestry  think  their 
prosperity  is  reasonably  steady  and  secure.” 

Also,  at  Oxford  Hall  (see  April  14),  the  congregation  organized,  on  April  18,  as 
“  Church  of  our  Redeemer.” 

April  21.  Put-in-Bay,  Ohio  (Epis.  Rec.)  Twelve  years  since  established  as 
P..  E.  C.,  but  open  to  ministers  of  all  denominations.  The  excluding  Canon  of 
1868  forbid  this,  and  it  became  Congregational.  Failing  in  health,  Mr.  Weldon 
had  to  retire.  Rev.  W.  Bower,  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  was  invited,  and  took  charge  on  last 
Easter.  “  At  the  Parish  meeting  the  next  day. . .  .it  was  resolved  unanimously  that 
the  Parish. . .  .be  known  as  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  of  Put-in-Bay.” 
(xii.  59.) 

April  21.  Toronto,  Canada  (Epis.  Rec.)  Emmanuel  Church  held  the  first  serv¬ 
ice  on  March  7,  and  organized  on  Easter  Tuesday  . .  .have  purchased  land,  42x126, 
and  expect  to  have  a  frame  mission  chapel  up  in  about  six  weeks.  (January  1, 

1876,  Toronto.) 


(183) 


184 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


April  21,  1875. 

April  21.  New  Brunswick,  Canada  (Epis.  Bee.)  Rev.  Jolin  Todd,  M.A ,  says  : 
“  Our  ‘  Act  of  Incorporation  ’  has  safely  passed,  so  that  now.  . .  .the  R.  E.  C.  is  an 

established  fact _ in  its  legal  aspect. . .  .On  the  13th  we  had  the  first  of  a  series  of 

‘  Convocations' . . .  .entirely  unofficial. . .  .the  brightest  day  in  all  our  experience  of 
this  Church. . .  .The  laity  are  playing  a  most  important  part.  The  lost  talent  of  lay 
speaking  is  being  unearthed. .,  .A  building  committee  has  been  appointed,  an 
eligible  site  secured,  and  wejiope,  ere  the  end  of  summer,  to  have  a  neat  and  com¬ 
modious  church  of. . .  .St.  John’s  Church,  in  the  Parish  of  Sussex,  County  of  Kings, 
and  Province  of  New  Brunswick.” 

April  21,  Victoria,  B.  C.  (Epis.  Rec.)  The  Sunday-school  at  the  beginning  of 
January  had  205  scholars,  and  since  then  50  have  been  added,  with  19  teachers,  all 
members  of  the  R.  E.  C - Plans  for  a  church  and  Sunday-school  have  been  ac¬ 

cepted,  and  the  contract  for  the  latter  will  be  given  out  March  31.  (xvii.  June  9, 
1875.) 

April  21.  Differences  between  the  R.  E.  C.  and  the  Church  of  England  (Epis. 
Rec.)  These  are  substantially  the  same  as  stated,  Chap.  II.,  July  8,  1874. 


April  21.  “  Comprehensiveness  ”  a  myth  in  the  P.,E.  C . xviii. 

April  22.  Prayer-Book  Revision  (Canada) . xviii. 

April  28.  Conservatism  in  the  Irish  Revision . . xx.  9. 

May  1.  The  Church  Association  in  Canada . xviii. 


May  5.  Rev.  Dr.  Richard  Newton’s  reasons  (Epis.  Rec.)  for  not  joining  the 
R.  E.  C.,  as  given  in  an  advertised  address  on  May  2,  in  the  Church  of  the  Epiph¬ 
any  :  1st.  “  To  do  so  is  not  wise,”  for  we  must  testify  “  in  the  midst  of  error.”  [Stay 
in  the  Church  of  Rome?]  2d.  It  “is  not  right ”  to  separate  the  wheat  from  the 
tares,  “  let  both  grow  together.”  [?]  3d.  It  “  is  not  kind.”  If  all  the -evangelical 

ministers  should  leave  the  Episcopal  Church,  what  would  be  the  condition  of  the 
people  but  to  be  handed  over  to  Romanists  and  Ritualists  ?  [Have  the  people  no 
minds  of  their  own?].  4tli.  “It  calls  for  au  expenditure  of  means  which  is  not 
necessary.”  [?].  They  put  forth  special  efforts  to  build  on  another  man’s  foundation. 
[?]...  .One  Rector.  . .  .informed  him  that  every  family  of  his  parish  had  been  solicit¬ 
ed,  and  urged  to  join  the  organization.  [By  whom  ?  This  is  striking  in  the  dark.] 
5tli.  It  “  is  not  charitable.”  It  alienates  and  separates  those  who  are  at  one  in  a 
house. . .  .causes  strife. . .  .needless  and  painful. . .  .Nothing  can  justify  it. .  .  .Charity 
. . .  .endureth  all  things. . .  .That  heavenly  charity  must  fail  in  every  one  who  joins 
this  Church.  [Why  ?]  6th.  It  is  “  not  expedient.’’  The  foundation  is  too  narrow 
. . . .‘  regenerate  ’  in  the  baptismal  service  is  the  greatest  difficulty. . .  .1  maintain 
that  any  minister  has  a  right  to  omit  the  word. . .  .1  will  venture  to  say  that 
never  will  any  minister  be  disturbed  again  who  omits  the  word.  [Dr.  N.  is  not  the 
P.  E.  C.]. . .  .In  order  to  cover  up  their  defect,  the  R.  E.  C.  has  to  abuse  the  old 
Church.  [See  Chap,  xiii,  xiv.]  7th.  “It  is  not  safe  to  join.... has  nothing 

which  gives  any  promise  of  stability. . .  .Bishop  Cummins.  . .  .took  off  all  the  rivets 

* 

from  the  ship;  so  it  will  not  be  a  safe  ship  in  a  storm,  [xix.  2.].... it  is  not 
safe.”  [He  is  more  prudent  than  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  Ridley.]  The  editor  then 
reviews  these  positions  (xvii.  Jan.  19,  1876,  you  cannot  ;  xviii.  Jan.  1,  1876,  Ch.) 

May  5.  New  STork  first  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Income  for  the  year,  $16,217.51, 
of  which  $4,170  for  Sustentation  fund,  of  which  $2,000  reverted  to  the  use  of  this 
church.  Upwards  of  200  communicants.  Missionary  offerings,  $225.  Sunday- 
school  200. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


185 


May  5,  1875. 

May  5.  Brooklyn  (Epis.  Rec.)  On  26tli  April,  services  in  which  Rev.  Dr.  Thomp¬ 
son  of  the  Dutch  Reformed,  and  Rev.  Dr.  Buffington  of  the  Congregational,  and 
Rev.  Dr.  Cuyler  of  the  Congregational,  and  Rev.  Mr.  Schultz  of  the  Moravian 
church  took  part  with  Bishop  Cummins  and  the  Rector,  Rev.  W.  II.  Reid,  while 
Rev.  Dr.  Buckley  of  the  Methodist  was  on  the  platform.  Then  five  confirmed,  and 
the  accession  of  thirteen  others  announced,  (xix.  13.) 

May  5.  Victoria,  B.  C.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Bazar  on  the  31st  of  March  ;  yielded 
$1,200. 

May  5.  Toronto  (Epis.  Rec.)  Rev.  B.  B.  Usslier,  M.D.,  is  temporarily  in 
charge.  * 

May  12-18,  Journal  of  3d  General  Council  contains:  Officers,  1875-G;  Members 
of  General  Council  (pp.  5-8) ;  Rules  of  Order  ;  Dr.  Thompson’s  credentials  (xv.  18)  ; 
Report  on  printing  Prayer-Book  ;  Report  of  Standing  Committee,  showing  the  fol¬ 
lowing  clergymen  admitted  during  the  last  year,  with  the  names  of  the  churches 
from  which  they  came,  viz.:  W.  S.  Perkins,  P.  E.  C.  ;  John  Todd,  Methodist  ; 
Edwin  Potter,  Meth.  ;  James  A.  Latane,  P.  E.  C.  ;  Joseph  S.  Malone,  P.  E.  C.  ;  Wm. 
R.  Nicholson,  P.  E.  C.  ;  W.  H.  Johnson,  P.  E.  C.  (xiv.  10) ;  William  Bower,  P.  E.  C. ; 
J.  Howard  Smith,  P.  E.  C.  ;  G.  A.  Redles,  P.  E.  C.  ;  Benjamin  Johnson,  P.  E.  C.; 
Edward  Cridge,  Church  of  England  ;  J.  Eastburn  Brown,  P.  E.  C. ;  J.  H.  McElRey, 
P.  E.  C.  Also,  recommended  as  candidates :  W.  A.  Green  (colored),  John  S.  Gibson, 
Alexander  Sloan,  R.  F.  Kingsley.  Also  to  the  Diaconate,  Alexander  Sloan  ;  and  to 
the  Presbyteriate,  Rev.  John  Todd  and  Rev.  Edwin  Potter.  Also,  churches  re¬ 
ceived  in  Louisville,  Toronto,  Jefferson  City,  Victoria,  B.  C.  ;  St.  John,  N.  B. ; 
Newark,  Sussex,  N.  B.  (xvii.  April  21.) 

Committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  statement  of  the  points  of  difference  between 
the  P.  E.  C.  and  the  R.  E.  C.  (p.  18  ;  xvii.  Feb.  9,  1876).  Bishop  W.  L.  Harris, 
D.D.,  Methodist,  addressed  the  Council,  and  took  a  seat  beside  the  Presiding  Bishop 
(p.  18).  Free  Church  of  England  adoption  of  articles  of  federation  reported  (p.  19  ; 
xv.  15).  'Special  services  presented — that  for  Easter  day  accepted.  St.  Stephen’s 
Lutheran  Church  received.  All  proposed  services  to  be  printed  and  circulated  be¬ 
fore  being  recommended  for  use  (p.  21  ;  xix.  5).  Bishop  Cummins’  report  (pp.  21- 
25).  Committee  to  recommend  a  course  of  study  to  next  Council.  Committee  on 
statistics  appointed.  German  Prayer-Book  ordered.  Rev.  A.  R.  Thompson’s 
address  (pp.  26-30)  ;  Bishop  Cummins’  answer  (pp.  30-32).  Delegates  to  Reformed 
(Dutch)  Church,  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith,  and  alternate,  Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  on 
first  Wednesday  in  June  (xv.  17).  Articles  I.  to  X.  adopted  (pp.  33-35).  Treasurer 
reported  $16,522.70  received  for  general  purposes,  leaving  balance  on  hand  $313.36 
(p.  36).  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  reported  Prayer  and  Hymn-Books  printed,  22,550  :  vol¬ 
umes  bound,  16,106  ;  circulated,  12,000  (p.  37.) 

Next  Council  to  be  held  at  Ottawa  (p.  38  ;  xvii.  March  1,  1876.  Confer).  Changes 
in  Prayer-Book  referred  (p.  39;  xix.  6).  Art.  xi.-xvii.  (pp.  40-42).  Committees  nom¬ 
inated  (p.  43).  Art.  xviii.  (p.  43).  Chicago  Preachers’  Association  of  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Epis.  Cli.  introduced.  Rev.  Edward  Cridge,  of  Victoria,  B.  C.,  elected  Bishop 
(p.  44).  Rev.  Jas.  A.  Latane  elected  Bishop  (p.  45)  [Declined].  Articles  xix. -xxvii. 
(pp.  46-48).  Standing  Committees  elected  (pp.  49,  50).  Articles  xxviii.-xxxv.  (pp. 
50,  51).  Adoption  of  Articles  (p.  53;  xix.  1.) 

Report  of  Financ  t  Committee :  “  We  meet  without  a  debt.  $12,000  required  for 


186 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


May  12-18,  1875. 

the  coming  year  for  salaries  and  traveling  expenses  of  the  Presiding  Bishop  and 
the  Evangelists,  and  for  salary  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Standing  Committee  for  rent 
of  office,  and  for  printing  and  other  contingencies.  Your  committee  therefore 
recommends  that  a  quarterly  collection  be  taken  in  each  parish,  and  transmitted  to 
the  Treasurer  of  the  Sustentation  Fund,  in  order  to  meet  the  above  expenses,  and  to 
place  in  the  hands  of  the  Committee  on  Sustentation  an  extra  fund  to  be  used  in  the 
same  mode  as  during  the  last  year,  to  afford  help  in  any  direction  where  such  help 
may  be  necessary.” 

Rev.  Benjamin  Johnson  elected  as  Evangelist  in  the  South.  Rev.  W.  R. 
Nicholson,  D.D.,  elected  Bishop  (p.  55  ;  xvii.  Feb.  25,  1876).  Dec.  2  to  be  observed 
as  the  anniversary  of  the  founding  of  R.  E.  C.  (p.  56  ;  ix;  x.) 

Appendix  contains  the  sermon  by  Bishop  Cummins  (pp.  1-19).  Articles  of  Re¬ 
ligion  as  adopted  (pp.  21-29).  Forms  (pp.  80-38).  Constitution  and  Canons,  with 
their  index,  (p.  5-52.) 

May  31.  Rev.  Samuel  Fallows,  D.D.  (Times).  A  Western  Methodist  news¬ 
paper  announces  that  Rev.  Samuel  Fallows,  D.D.,  now  President  of  the  Illinois 
Wesleyan  University  at  Bloomington,  is  about  to  withdraw  from  the  Methodist 
Church,  and  adds :  “  Dr.  Fallows  departs,  not  because  of  any  sort  of  dissatisfaction 
or  any  shade  of  discontent  with  our  doctrines  or  modes  of  work,  but  simply  because 
his  services  are  in  request  by  those  who  are  laying  plans  for  usefulness  on  principles 
already  familiar  to  a  Methodist  minister.  The  doctor  will,  in  July,  become  Rector 
of  St.  Paul’s  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  in  Mil  waukee  [Chicago],  and  in  addition 
to  his  duties  with  a  Church  which  aims  to  do  earnest  work  on  the  tabernacle  plan 
among  the  masses,  lie  will  superintend  the  laying  of  foundations  for  an  educational 
institution  among  his  new  constituency.  In  this  instance,  as  always,  under  similar 
circumstances,  we  trust  all  our  readers  and  our  whole  Church  will  give  Dr.  Fallows  a 
generous,  hearty,  candid,  and  Christian  God-speed.  He  goes  without  discount  or 
stain,  and  by  laws  of  true  Christian  economy  we  gladly  spare  him  to  those  whose 
laborers  are  not  so  numerous  as  ours.  We  congratulate  his  new  constituency  upon 
the  acquisition  they  will  presently  gain.  President  Fallows  resigned  his  Presi¬ 
dency  May  18,  but  will  serve  at  Bloomington  until  after  the  June  Commence¬ 
ment.”  (xix.  13.) 

June  9.  Tobago.  (Epis.  Rec.)  A  clergyman  writes  to  Bishop  Cummins :  “  I  am 
authorized  by  the  Leeward  parishes  of  this  island,  viz.,  St.  David’s  and  St.  Patrick’s, 
congregations  of  about  3,000  attendants  and  500  communicants,  to  address  you  and 
express  our  united  desire  to  join  the  R.  E.  C.,  placing  ourselves  under  your  Episco¬ 
pal  charge.” 

June  9.  Victoria,  B.  C.  (Epis.  Rec.)  A  contract  has  been  made  for  building  a 
church.  An  organ  has  been  purchased  in  San  Francisco,  (xvii.  April  21.) 


June  9.  Retirement  of  Rev.  John  Cotton  Smith . xviii. 

June  15.  Church  of  England.  Its  legal  position . xviii. 


June  16.  Reformed  (Dutch)  Church  (Epis.  Rec.)  On  June  7,  Rev.  Marshall 
B.  Smith,  Delegate  from  the  R.  E.  C.,  addressed  the  General  Synod:  “The  word 
Episcopal,  as  we  understand  it,  signifies  but  little  more  than  what  you  understand 
by  the  word  Presbyterian. . .  .We  are  not  disorganizers  or  destroyers  of  the  faith. 
We  hold  the  same  great  principles  of  truth,  in  all  their  integrity,  that  you  hold. . . . 
Coming  to  you  to-day,  in  response  to  your  invitation,  we  recognize  in  ycu  the  rep- 


I 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


187 


June  16,  1875. 

resentatives  of  the  historic  Church  of  the  Netherlands,  one  of  the  grandest  bul¬ 
warks  against  Romish  intolerance  and  superstition.  „ .  .We  thank  God  that  the  first 
Church  which  gave  us  the  hand  of  fellowship  was  the  child  of  that  good  old  Church 
of  Holland,  whose  history  is  baptized  in  martyrs’  blood.”  (xv.  17  ;  xvii.  May  12-18, 
1875;  xix.  13.) 

Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson  (Bishop  elect  in  the  R.  E.  C.)  spoke  of  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  or  oneness  of  souls  in  Christ.  “  The  Reformed  Church  in  America  we  can 
never  forget,  nor  the  good  old  times  of  Dort,  and  of  our  own  Bishop  Hall. . .  .The 
Reformed  Church,  grand  in  its  historical  associations,  and  with  its  big  heart  still  as 
warm  as  ever ;  and  the  R.  E.  C.,  as  yet  of  so  tender  an  age. . .  .may  they  ever  go 
hand  in  hand.’’  (xix.  13.) 

Rev.  Charles  Scott,  of  Michigan,  President  of  the  Synod,  said  :  “  This  Reformed 
Church  sent  you  a  hearty  greeting,  and  how  heartily  you  have  responded. . .  .More 
than  250  years  ago,  representatives  of  the  Episcopal  Church  stood  in  the  presence 
of  the  Dutch  Synod.  The  two  churches  then  labored  hand  in  hand  and  heart  to 
heart.  More  than  150  years  ago,  our  ministers  put  their  bands  on  one  of  your 
Episcopal  ministers  in  New  York. . .  .1  have  educated  a  minister  of  that  body,  and 
he  tells  me  to-day  that  I  am  not  a  minister.  But  such  barriers,  as  far  as  you  are 
concerned,  are  all  fallen.  You  come  to  say,  We  are  brethren  ;  and  that  hearty 
welcome  which  we  gave  you  will  still  go  with  you.”  (xv.  17.) 


June  19.  Bishops  above  law  (Chn.) . xviii. 

June  24.  Bishops  above  law  (So.  Ch.) . xviii. 


July  3.  R.  E.  C.  in  Canada  (Chn.)  A  “  letter  from  England,”  says  :  “  Nothing  is 
more  detested  in  Ireland,  than  the  mongrel  thing  which  we  call  ‘ritualism.’  This 
agitation  reminds  me  of  the  schism,  of  which  you  have  yourselves  to  complain, 
and  which  I  have  just  heard  has  extended  itself  with  fatal  rapidity  outside  the 
limits  of  your  government  into  the  British  colonies  .  .  .  and  we  are  less  surprised 
than  distressed  to  hear  that  a  head  has  been  found  for  the  schismatic  body,  in 


Dean  Cridge.”  (xvii.  May  12-18,  1875;  March  1,  1876;  Confer.) 

July  3.  Oxford  University  (Chn) . xviii. 

July  3.  Toronto  Synod  (Chn) . xviii. 

July  7.  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour  (Ch.  St.)  on  June  24,  was  elected  Permanent  Dean 
of  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  (xii.  59). 

July  8.  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour,  Bishop  of  the  R.  E.  C.  (So.  Ch.) . xviii. 

July  8.  P.  E.  C.  is  “a  most  respectable  society”  (So.  Ch.) . xviii. 


July  10.  The  right  of  separation  (Chn.)  The  editor  says  ;  “  We  can  never  join 
those  theorists,  who  launch  their  thunders  at  the  so-called  Reformed  Church,  as  if 
separation  were  in  all  cases  a  profane  schism.  The  right  of  revolution  is  not  to  be 
denied  in  the  State  or  in  the  Church.  But  it  can  only  be  justified  when,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Old  Catholics,  the  Papal  law  became  a  despotism  beyond  all  hope  of 
wise  reform.  It  can  only  be  justified  when  its  good  is  sure  to  be  greater  than  the 
evil  of  dismemberment.  This  is  the  touchstone  of  common  sense  by  which  the 
movement  will  be  tried  ;  and  among  the  twelve  reasons  of  Wesley  there  are  two 
which  we  commend  to  our  reformers :  ‘  Because  the  plan  of  a  new  church  would 
require  much  more  wisdom  and  depth  of  thought  than  any  of  us  are  masters  of.’ 
‘Because  the  experiment  has  been  so  frequently  tried  and  the  success  has  never 
answered  the  expectations.’”  (xiii.  10,  12  ;  xix.  2). 


188 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


July  14,  1875. 

July  14.  R.  E.  C.  in  Virginia  (Epis.  Rec.)  On  July  3,  Rev.  J.  A.  Latane 
preached  in  Washington,  Rappahannock  Co.,  Va.  On  Monday,  July  5,  the  First  R. 
E.  C.  of  Rappahannock  was  organized,  (xvii.  May  12-18,  1875.) 

July  21.  Rev.  John  Cotton  Smith,  D  .D.  (Cli.  St.)  Speaking  of  his  retirement 
from  the  editorship  of  Ch.  St.,  the  Evangelist  says :  “  Dr.  Smith  would  fain  make 
room  for  all  the  warring  elements  within  the  Episcopal  fold,  and  it  .would  appear 
that  his  spirit  of  extreme  tolerance  has  in  recent  months,  especially  since  the  Re¬ 
formed  movement  set  in,  met  with  a  wide,  not  to  say  general  acceptance.”  (xii.  58). 

And  the  Springfield  Republican  says :  “  All  ecclesiastical  proceedings  against  any 
of  these  schools,  he  deems  most  unwise  ;  without  such  proceedings,  he  asserts  that 
the  ‘  unj ustifiable  and  wicked’  Reformed  Episcopal  (Cummins)  movement  would 
never  have  taken  pi  ace.”  (ii.  Dec.  16, 1874,  B.  A. ;  xix.  12). 

July  21.  Influence  of  the  R.  E.  C.  in  Canada  (Epis.  Rec.)  A  correspondent  of 
the  Toronto  Globe  says :  “  Professor  Wilson  at  the  late  meeting  of  the  Church  Asso¬ 
ciation,  boasted  that  the  Association  are  the  only  ones  that  are  keeping  low-church¬ 
men  from  joining  the  R.  E.  C.  He  states  probably  a  fact.  .  .  .  Who  has  given 
relief  to  the  low-cliurch  party,  from  the  ritualism  of  Rev.  Mr.  Darling,  and 
wrested  a  division  of  the  parish  and  a  low-cliurcli  clergyman  from  the  Bishop  of 
Toronto  ?  All  know — the  R,  E.  C.  Who  stood  in  the  gap  and  smited  down  higli- 
churcli  bigotry  on  its  way  to  persecute  Dean  Grassett  ?  The  R.  E.  C.  Over  one 
hundred  of  the  Dean’s  congregation  declared  that  if  the  persecutions  were  not 
stopped,  they  would  go  right  over  and  join  the  R.  E.  C.,  and  higli-churchmen 
ieared  another  Dean  Cridge  affair  on  their  hands.  Who  caused  Archdeacon  Low- 
derto  cast  out  every  particle  of  Romanism  from  the  altar  and  chancel  of  Christ 
Church,  Ottawa?  The  R.  E.  C.  All  the  struggles  of  low-churchmen  to  get  rid  of 
these  things  were  futile  until  Mr.  Bishop,  of  Spark  street,  and  five  others,  went  to 
the  Archdeacon  and  told  him  that  they  could  stand  them  no  longer,  and  were  about 
to  go  over  and  join  the  R.  E.  C.  The  R.  E.  C.  has  done  all  this  and  yet  ‘  it  is  unsuited 
to  Canada  !’  ”  (III.  Jan.  14,  1875.  Toronto.) 

Aug.  25.  Bishop  duintard  (Epis.  Rec.)  In  his  letter  of  February  12,  1875,  in 
answer  to  resignation  of  Rev.  J.  Howard  Smith,  D.D.,  of  February  5  (i.  Feb.  17),  he 
says  :  “  All  that  I  can  recognize  is  the  fact,  that  you  have  renounced  the  ministry 
of  the  Church,  and  decided  to  unite  yourself  to  the  so-called  R.  E.  C.  This  is  an 
act  of  your  own  mere  grace  and  free  will.  I  can  not  look  upon  it  but  as  an  act  of 
schism,  and  schism  is  a  sin  ;  and  sin  needs  to  be  repented  of.  Should  you  consum¬ 
mate  the  act,  you  will  assuredly  be  guilty  of  a  wilful  breach  of  the  outward  unity 
of  the  Church,  and  for  this  there  is  no  sufficient  cause.  Your  act  will  be  not  only 
schism,  but  a  causeless  schism.  .  .  .  Men,  I  know,  argue  that  there  should  be  differ¬ 
ent  sects.  .  .  .  But  what  is  this  but  to  affirm  that  the  Gospel  is  dependent  for  the 
preservation  of  its  purity  and  vitality  on  the  works  of  the  flesh,  *  which  are  hatred, 
variance,  emulations,  strifes,  sedition,  heresies.’  ”  (xiii.  10  ;  xix.  12). 


Sept.  1.  No  re-ordination  of  a  Romish  Priest . xviii. 

Sept.  4.  Bishop  Cox  on  the  rejection  of  Seymour . xviii. 


Sept.  8.  R.  E.  C.  at  Chatham,  N.  B.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Bishop  Cummins  writes  Aug. 
18,  that  a  church  has  been  inaugurated  in  Chatham  on  the  Miramichi  (pronounced 
Miramashee). 

Sept.  11.  Bishop  Cox,  continues  Sept.  4  (Chn.) 


xviii. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


189 


September  16,  1875. 

Sept.  16.  Hev.  Dr.  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  Jr.  (So.  Ch.)  Dr.  Tyng  writes  to  a  Chi¬ 
cago  paper :  “  I  have  been  a  close  observer  of  the  Reformed  Church. _ another  of  the 

schisms  which  have  disturbed. . .  .the  outward  how  of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
faith. . .  .If  it  is  to  be  the  gospel  of  ill-will,  we  know  what  its  end  will  be. . .  .The 
Episcopal  Church,  as  they  can  see,  is  in  no  way  disturbed  by  the  spirit  they  have 
shown.”  (This  is  a  forgery.  See  xviii.  Jan.  1;  xi.  42.) 

Sept.  16.  Virginia  Churchman  (So.  Ch.)  says:  “If  there  are  any  in  our 
Church  contemplating  leaving  its  fold  to  join  the  so-called  £  R.  E.  C.’  we  would  beg 
them  to  consider. . .  .That  movement  has  effected,  can  effect  nothing  towards  a 
reformation.  It  can  not  touch  the ‘  Ritualist  ’  or  the  ‘  High-Cliurcliman.  ’  Its  only  ef¬ 
fect  has  been  heretofore,  and  must  be  hereafter,  the  weakening  the  hands  of  those 
whose  views  on  all  essential  points  of  doctrine  are  identical  with  the  originators  and 
abettors  of  this  new  scheme.”  Signed,  “  An  Evangelical  Churchman.”  (xii.  33-59). 

Sept.  22.  Missionary  Jurisdiction  of  the  H.  E.  C.  (Epis.  Rec.)  1st,  St.  John , 
comprising  the  Canadian  Provinces  of  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  and  Prince 
Edward’s  Island,  with  Standing  Committee,  Rev.  W.  V.  Feltwell,  Rev.  J.  Eastburn 
Brown,  Henry  Jack,  Esq.,  John  Clark,  Esq. 

(2)  Ottawa,  comprising  the  Canadian  Provinces  of  Ontario,  Quebec,  and  Mani¬ 
toba.  Standing  Committee,  Rev.  H.  M.  Collisson,  Rev.  J.  McCormac,  Alexander 
Burritt,  Esq.,  Henry  Alexander,  Esq. 

(3 )  Pacific,  comprising  the  Canadian  Province  of  British  Columbia,  and  all  the 
States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

(4)  East,  comprising  the  New  England  States  and  the  States  of  New  York  and 
New  Jersey.  Standing  Committee,  Rev.  W.  T.  Sabine,  Rev.  J.  Howard  Smith,  D.D., 
Jas.  L.  Morgan,  Esq,  William  Scharf,  Esq. 

(5)  Central,  comprising  the  States  of  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware.  Standing 
Committee,  Rev.  William  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  Rev.  Walter  Windeyer,  Thomas  H. 
Powers,  Esq.,  Samuel  Ashurst,  M.D. 

(G)  South,  comprising  the  District  of  Columbia,  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  all 
other  of  the  United  States  lying  east  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  south  of  the 
Ohio  River,  not  already  embraced  in  the  missionary  jurisdiction  of  the  East,  and 
the  Central  Missionary  Jurisdiction.  Standing  Committee,  Rev.  W.  M.  Postleth- 
waite,  Rev.  James  A.  Latane,  R.  H.  Franklin,  Esq.,  G.  Morris  Bond,  Esq. 

(7)  North-west  and  West,  comprising  the  States  of  Ohio,  Michigan,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  all  other  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the 
United  States  lying  west  of  the  Mississippi  River  and  east  of  the  Rocky  Moun¬ 


tains. 

Sept;.  22.  Sale  of  Church  and  State  to  Churchman . xviii. 

Sept.  23.  Pulverization  of  Bishops — Bishop  Clark . xviii. 

Oct.  2.  Infidels  and  gamblers  in  Illinois . xviii. 


Oct.  9.  Imitating,  but  abusing  (Chn).  (xix.,  1£-15.) 

Oct.  15.  “The  General  Thanksgiving ”  (Chn).  “  H.  H.  0.”  says  :  “In  two 
recent  issues  of  The  Churchman  I  have  noticed  letters  asking  for  the  authority  for 
a  novel  custom  in  divine  service.  The  practice  alluded  to  is  that  of  the  congrega¬ 
tion  repeating  the  General  Thanksgiving  with  the  minister. ” 

[In  the  R.  E.  C.  the  Rubric  so  directs.  On  the  continent  of  Europe  I  have  in 
several  places  heard  it  so  repeated  in  the  Church  of  England  service  ;  as  always  at 


190 


CHAPTER  XYn. 


October  15,  1875. 

Vevay,  in  Switzerland,  in  the  Summer  of  1875.  I  was  informed  that  such  is  the 
practice  where  the  clergy  are  Evangelical,  while  the  High- Churchmen  object  to  it.] 


Nov.  6.  Domestic  Missions  of  the  P.  E.  C . xviii 

Nov.  6.  Board  of  Missions  of  the  P.  E.  C . xviii. 

Nov.  6.  House  of  Bishops . xviii. 

Nov.  6.  Bishop  of  Maine,  annual  address . xviii. 

Nov.  6.  General  Theological  Seminary .  xviii. 

Nov.  6.  Society  for  Increase  of  the  Ministry . xviii. 

Nov.  11.  Church  Congress  of  the  P.  E.  C . xviii. 

Nov.  20.  Christian  Union . xviii. 

Nov.  20.  Church  Congress . xviii. 

Nov.  29.  Cardinal  McCloskey . xviii. 

Dec.  10.  English  exclusiveness . xviii. 

Dec.  11.  Free  Preaching  and  the  Parish  System . xix.  11 


Dec.  15.  First  colored  clergyman  of  the  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Bishop  Cummins 
writes  that  on  Dec.  5  he  ordained  as  “  Deacon  Mr.  Frank  C.  Ferguson,  not  a  novice, 
but  one  who  in  the  P.  E.  C.  has  been  an  earnest  and  faithful  worker  as  a  layman 
among  his  own  race,  and  comes  to  us  with  the  full  confidence  and  high  esteem  of 
both  white  and  colored  people  among  whom  he  resides.  He  has  been  for  several 
years  preparing  himself  by  study  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  and  is  a  teacher 
of  a  large  school  for  colored  children. . .  .Rev.  Mr.  Stevens. . .  .proposes  to  open,  on 
the  1st  of  January,  1876,  in  Charleston,  a  training  school  for  the  education  of  col¬ 
ored  candidates  for  the  ministry.” 

Dec.  15.  N.  Y.  Herald  (Epis.  Rec.)  A  correspondent  says :  “  The  progress  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  under  very  serious  obstacles  and  hindrances  of  divers  kinds  has  been 
something  rather  remarkable,  and  shows,  if  such  results  can  show,  that  it  meets  a 
felt  want  of  the  people.  In  December,  1873,  it  had  only  eight  clergymen,  includ 
ing  Bishop  Cummins,  and  not  a  single  congregation.  Now  it  has  fifty  congrega¬ 
tions  and  more  than  that  number  of  ministers.  One  characteristic  of  the  R.  E.  C. 
is  that  they  do  their  work  quietly  and  unostentatiously. ..  .The  young  church 
deserves  the  success  it  has  had  against  the  almost  insuperable  difficulties  with 
which  it  has  bad  to  contend.  Called  into  being  at  the  beginning  of  this  present 
gigantic  financial  crisis,  it  has  been  compelled  to  struggle  with  poverty.  Meeting 
with  a  well-organized  hostility  in  the  Church  whence  she  sprung,  she  has  had  to 
labor  for  a  foothold.”  (x. ;  xiii.) 

Dec.  29.  Two  more  colored  Deacons  (Epis.  Rec.)  Bishop  Cummins  writes  that 
he  has  ordained  Edwin  A.  Forrest.  “  He  is  not  a  novice,  having  already  labored 
with  acceptance  and  success  as  a  preacher  among  his  own  people.”  Also  Lawrence 
A.  Dawson.  Mr.  Stevens  “  feelingly  alluded  to  the  time  when  Mr.  Ferguson  (see 
Dec.  15)  had  eight  years  before  knelt  at  the  same  chancel-rail  before  going  forth  to 
a  freedman’s  school  in  Ralciglq  N.  C.,  to  prepare  himself  for  the  ministry  ;  and  that 
now,  after  many  discouragements  and  seemingly  adverse  providences,  he  could  see 
the  hand  of  God  in  keeping  him  and  his  brethren  out  of  the  ministry  until  this 
R.  E.  C.  was  ready  to  enroll  them  as  pioneers  in  the  great  field  lying  before  them 
among  the  myriads  of  their  own  race.” 

Dec.  29.  Prayer-Book  of  1785  (Epis.  Rec.)  Rev.  B.  Johnson  says  of  the  address 
of  Bishop  Cummins  in  Charleston:  “While  reciting  the  history  of  the  Bishop 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


191 


December  29,  1875. 

White  Prayer-Book  ancl  its  fate,  the  Bishop  delivered  the  telling  fact  that  ninety 
years  ago  the  delegates  from  St.  Philip’s  and  St.  Michael’s  churches,  Charleston, 
voted  for  the  very  Prayer-Book  the  R.  E.  C.  had  restored  ;  priesthood,  baptismal 
regeneration  and  all  eliminated.”  (vi.  6—11.) 

Dec.  29.  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill,  D.D.  (Epis.  Rec.)  After  proving  that  religious  toler¬ 
ation  in  Maryland  did  not  come  from  the  Roman  Catholics,  he  answers  an  attack 
upon  himself  thus :  “  In  the  providence  of  God,  I  happen  to  be  the  descendant  of 
one  of  the  executors  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  the  American  philosopher,  (xvii. 


Feb.  2, 1876.  Maryland.) 

Dec.  30.  Episcopalians  in  Georgia . xviii. 

]  876. 

Jan.  1.  Candidates  for  orders  in  the  P.  E.  C . xviii. 


Jan.  1.  The  Appeal  “  to  the  Law  and  the  Testimony,”  published  monthly, 
oegins  this  day,  with  Rev.  Samuel  Fallows,  D.D.,  editor-in-chief,  and  along  list  of 
co-editors,  all  of  the  R.  E.  C.  The  editor  of  the  Episcopal  Recorder  is  a  presbyter 
in  the  P.  E.  C.  Low-Cliurch,  and  from  the  beginning  friendly  to  the  R.  E.  C.,  and 
the  only  editor  of  the  P.  E.  C.  that  has  allowed  a  hearing  to  the  friends  of  the  R. 
E.  C.  But  not  being  a  member  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  he  frequently  attacks  the  “  Prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  R.  E.  C.”  (xix.  2.) 

Jan.  1.  Toronto  (Appeal).  Rev.  Johnston  McCormac  says  that  Emmanuel  R. 
E.  C.  in  West  Toronto  purchased  “  three  lots  on  Markham  street,  in  the  centre  of  a 
very  poor  and  destitute  neighborhood,  and  the  erection  of  a  little  church  (Em¬ 
manuel)  will  cost  about  $1,000  and  will  seat  about  two  hundred  people.”  Then 
(xix.  8.) 

Jan.  1.  Algoma  Mission  (Appeal).  Rev.  W.  Hartley,  Evangelist  missionary 
for  Algoma,  Canada,  writing  from  Glen  Nevis,  says  :  “  The  mission  I  have  in 
charge — i.  e.,  Algoma — extends  north  and  west  for  more  than  two  hundred  miles 
,  .  .Eight  different  stations,  besides  several  lumber  camps. ..  .About  fifty  in  each 
camp.  ” 

Jan.  1.  Ottawa  (Appeal).  The  second  anniversary  of  the  R.  E.  C.  Dec.  2. .  .“At 
the  close  of  Mr.  Collisson’s  address,  Rev.  Mr.  Hunter,  of  the  Methodist  Church  and 
Rev.  Mr.  Armstrong  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  made  kind  and  congratulatory 
remarks.”  (xix.  2;  13.) 

Jan.  1.  Moncton,  N.  B.  (Appeal).  Rev.  J.  Eastburn  Brown  says  :  “  I  have  had 
nothing  to  do  but  to  preach  the  Gospel ;  no  time  lost  in  explaining  what  the  Church 
does  not  mean,”  etc.  (xii.  58  ;  xviii.  Jan.  19,  1876,  Revis.) 

Jan.  1.  Chicago  (Appeal).  At  Christ  church. . .  .on  the  morning  previous  to 

Bishop  Cheney’s  visit  to  the  South - twenty  persons  were  confirmed.  This  was 

additional  to  the  Easter  confirmations,  at  which  twenty -five  professed  Christ. 

St.  Paul’s  church.  “  Bishop  Cheney  recently  confirmed  eleven  persons.  Preced¬ 
ing  the  confirmation  the  rector.  Dr.  Fallows,  had  received  on  confession  of  faith 
since  taking  charge,  June  15,  1875,  nearly  a  hundred  communicants.  Its  present 
membership  is  almost  two  hundred.  St.  Paul’s  church  joined  with  Rev.  Dr.  Kit- 
tredge’s  church  (Presbyterian)  and  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin’s  church  (Congregational)  in 
a  union  Thanksgiving  service  last  November. . .  .one  of  the  largest  audiences  ever 
gathered  together  on  a  Thanksgiving  occasion  in  Chicago.  Addresses  were  deliv- 


192 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


January  1,  1876. 

ered  by  Rev.  Dr.  Fallows,  Major  Whittle,  and  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin. . .  .The  same  day 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Fowler,  President  of  the  Northwestern  University  (Methodist); 
preached  for  Bishop  Cheney,  and  Rev.  Arthur  Swazey,  D.D.,  for  Dr.  Fallows. . . . 
Rev.  Dr.  Duffield  (Presbyterian)  recently  exchanged  pulpits  with  Dr.  Fallows. 
Several  eminent  Methodist  clergymen  have  also  preached  for  Dr.  Fallows,  and  as¬ 
sisted  in  the  services  and  the  administration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper.”  (xix.  2,  13.) 

Jan.  1.  University  of  the  West  (Appeal).  Anticipations. 

Jan.  1.  Chillicothe,  Ohio  (Appeal).  Rev.  J.  P.  Davis  says  that  a  P.  E.  C. 
congregation  without  a  rector. . .“  on  Sept.  24. .  .in  a  body  and  almost  unanimously 
voted  to  come  into  the  R.  E.  C.”  (xv.,  15-v  ;  xvii.,  Jan.  5,  1876.) 

Jan.  1.  Englewood  (Appeal).  The  R.  E.  Trinity  church.  Rev.  M.  T.  McCor¬ 
mick,  Rector,  keeps  on  its  course  with  ever  increasing  energy. 

Jan.  1.  Peoria  (Appeal).  Dec.  7,  seven  confirmed  ;  earlier  in  the  year  “nearly 
fifty  persons  were  added  to  the  church  by  letter  and  by  confession  of  faith.” 

Jan.  1.  Louisville  (Appeal).  “  In  the  spring  or  early  summer  of  1874.... 
Rev.  J.  S.  Malone,  rector  of  Emmanuel  Church,”  joined  the  R.  E.  C.  “  The  con¬ 
gregation.  . .  .determined  to  follow. . .  .and  by  a  very  large  majority  voted  to  sever 
their  connection  with  the  P.  E.  C.  and  unite  with  the  R.  E.  C. . .  .Rev.  W.  H. 
Johnson  accepted  a  call. . .  .resigned,  and  returned  to  his  old  diocese  and  church.” 
(xiv.  10.)  Rev.  J.  K.  Dunn  accepted. . .  .The  roll  of  membership  has  increased  by 
nearly  fifty  names  since  spring. . .  .The  title  to  the  property  is  now  in  litigation.” 

Jan.  1.  Newark,  NT.  J.  (Appeal.)  At  the  second  anniversary,  Dec.  2,  “ten  of 
the  leading  ministers  of  the  city,  representing  seven  denominations,  were  present, 
and  made  addresses.”  (xix.  2,  13.) 

Jan.  1.  Bishop  Nicholson  (Appeal).  Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D. ..  .Phila¬ 
delphia,  has  accepted  his  election  as  a  Missionary  Bishop  of  the  R.  E.  C.  (xvii. 
May  12-18,  1875  ;  Feb.  24,  1876.) 

Jan.  1.  New  York  (Appeal).  The  Herald  says:  The  “  2d  R.  E.  C.  organized 
about  five  weeks  ago  with  Rev.  George  Howell  as  pastor. . .  .about  one  hundred 
members. ..  .On  the  platform  last  evening  were  Rev.  Mr.  Howell  and  Rev.  Dr. 
Leacock,  of  the  R.  E.  C.;  Rev.  W.  Humpstone  and  Rev.  Drs.  Armitage  and 

Ball  of  the  Baptist  Cliurcli,  and  II.  B.  Turner,  Esq.,  of  the  R.  E.  C . 

Drs.  Ball  and  Armitage  said  that  they  were  there  to  extend  the  right  hand  of  fel¬ 
lowship  to  the  new  Church.  Dr.  Ball  looked  upon  the  movement,  not  as  a  schism, 
but  as  tending  toward  a  real  union  in  Christ.”  (xix.  2,  13.) 

Jan.  1.  Wheeling  (Appeal).  Rev.  J.  Id.  McMechen  says  that  there  is  a  good 
prospect  for  the  organization  of  a  R.  E.  C. . .  .at  no  distant  day. 

Jan.  1.  The  Freedmen  (Appeal).  Bishop  Cummins  [a  native  of  Delaware, 
lately  a  “  slave  State,”]  says :  “  They  gathered  in  a  convocation,  representing  six 
colored  churches,  and  asked  for  formal  admission  into  the  R.  E.  C.  Our  last  council 
in  May,  1875,  heard  and  heeded  their  call,  and  sent  an  evangelist  (the  Rev. 
Benjamin  Johnson),  [a  native  of  South  Carolina,  the  centre  of  slavery,  aud  he  a  late 
chaplain  in  the  Confederate  Army],  to  gather  them  in.  Soon  the  Rev.  P.  L.  Stevens 
[late  Colonel  in  the  same  army],  formerly  a  missionary  among  them  in  the  P.  E.  C.> 
came  forward  as  an  associate,  to  devote  his  life  to  their  welfare. . .  .Jan.  1,  1876,  we 
have  eight  congregations.  . .  .about  700  communicants. . .  .Three  colored  clergy¬ 
men.  . .  .Rev.  Mr.  Stevens  proposes  to  inaugurate  at  once  in  Charleston  a  training- 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


193 


January  1,  1876. 

school. . .  .Dec.  5,  1875.  . .  .One  of  the  freedmen,  F.  C.  Ferguson,  was  admitted  to 
our  ministry. . .  .1  consecrated. . . .‘  The  Church  of  the  Redeemer  ’  and. .  .confirmed 
thirty-six  persons.”  (xix.  8.) 

Jan.  1.  Rev.  Benjamin  Johnson  (Appeal).  Bishop  Cheney,  writing  from 
Marietta,  Ga.,  Nov.  17,  1875,  says  :  “  Great  interest  is  manifested  in  the  progress  of 
the  R.  E.  C.  The  Rev.  Benjamin  Johnson  was  for  many  years  the  rector  of  the 
P.  E.  C.  at  Macon,  in  this  State,  and  while  there,  gained  the  confidence  and  love  of 
the  entire  Christian  community.”  (xi.  26  ;  xvii.  May  12-18, 1875  ;  Jan.  1,  1876. 
Freedmen.) 

Jan.  1.  What  is  the  R.  E.  C.  ?  (Appeal).  Bishop  Cummins  says  :  “  It  is  ‘  a  firm 
and  heroic  stand  for  the  very  heart  of  the  Gospel. . .  .2d,  A  strong  and  living  pro¬ 
test  against  the  unchurching  dogma  which  limits  the  Church  of  Christ  to  one  form 
of  ecclesiastical  polity. . .  .3d,  Bears  an  equally  strong  protest  against  the  errors  of 
a  false  Liberalism  on  the  one  side,  as  against  Sacerdotalism  on  the  other. . .  .4th, 
An  earnest  effort  to  foster  and  promote  a  high  and  pure  type  of  Christian  life  and 
character.  . .  .5th,  Such  a  Church  as  many  of  God’s  people  have  longed  to  see  since 
the  dawn  of  the  English  Reformation, v  etc.  (xix.  2.) 

Jan.  1.  Rev.  Dr.  Stephen  H.  Tyng  (Appeal),  (xviii.  Jan.  1.) 

Jan.  1.  “Descent  into  Hell”  (Appeal).  J.  D.  W.  says:  “  The  Standard  of 
the  Cross. . .  .assailed  the  R.  E.  C.  because  it  removed  the  ‘  descent  into  hell  ’  from 
the  text  of  the  Apostles’  Creed. . .  .The  descent  imo  hell  is  a  comparatively  modern 
interpolation,  probably  of  no  higher  antiquity  than  the  seventh  century  ;  certainly 
unknown  before  the  fifth.”  (Prayer-Book  of  1785  has  this  omission,  vi. ;  ix.  2.) 

Jan.  5.  Rev.  Dr.  Leacock  has  taken  charge  of  the  new  congregation  of  the 
R.  E.  C.,  at  Newburg,  N.  Y.  (Epis.  Rec.) 

Jan.  5.  Chillicothe,  Ohio  (Epis.  Rec.)  On  Dec.  21,  Bishop  Cheney  received  tlie 
confirmation  from  a  class  of  eleven — “  all  adults,  with  one  exception.”  (xvii.  Jan. 
1,  1876.) . 

Jan.  5.  “Concerning  Bishops”  (Epis.  Rec.)  Rev.  J.  S.  Malone,  of  the 
R.  E.  C.,  in  a  communication  filling  two  columns,  says  :  “That bishops  and  presby¬ 
ters  are  designations  of  the  same  office,  is  perfectly  clear  to  any  one  reading  the 
New  Testament  without  prejudice  ”  (xi.  2).  “  The  highest  offices  of  teaching  and 

government  in  the  Church  are  represented  as  vested  in  the  presbyters  ”  (xi.  2). 
“  Could  it  be  made  clear  that  the  power  of  ordaining  the  ministry  was  given  to 
bishops  to  the  exclusion  of  presbyters,  that  would  indeed  go  far  to  prove  the  former 
a  distinct  order  of  ministers  in  their  original  appointment”  (xi.  2;  Const.  Art.  iii., 
iv.,  vi.,  vii.,  Can.  4,  etc.,  Tit.  I.). . .  .“This  meeting  of  presbyters  would  naturally 
lead  to  the  appointment. .  .  .of  one  to  preside  over  the  assembly  for  the  sake  of 
order”  (xi.  2).  “With  the  coming  in  of  corruption  came  dioceses,  provinces,  etc., 
with  diocesan  bishops,  metropolitan  primates,  patriarchs,  and  finally"  the  Pope” 
(xix.  11,  9).  “  Why,  then,  should  the  R.  E.  C.  follow  the  examples  of  the  Roman 

and  Episcopal  Churches,  and  entail  the  labor  and  grief  of  another  Reformation 
upon  coming  generations  ?  ”  [Our  standards,  as  referred  to,  meet  all  these  objec¬ 
tions.  As  to  his  conclusions,  see  xix.  2,  4].  (xvii.  Feb.  1  ;  use  of  R.  E.  C.) 

Jan.  5.  Mass  in  Masquerade  (Epis.  Rec.)  in  New  York . xviii. 

Jan.  12.  Virginia  (Epis.  Rec.)  At  Millers,  Essex  Co.,  Va.,  on  the  third  Sun¬ 
day  in  December,  the  Rev.  J.  A.  Latane,  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  assisted  by  Rev.  J.  Schack- 


194 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


January  12,  1876. 

ford,  of  the  Methodist  Church,  administered  the  communion  to  members  of  different 
denominations,  in  the  Methodist  Church  loaned  to  the  R.  E.  C.  one  Sunday,  and 
sometimes  two  in  eacli  month.  The  R.  E.  C.  has  purchased  a  building  for  a  church, 
(xix.  13.) 

Jan.  12.  London  Rock  (Epis.  Rec.)  This  “organ  of  the  Evangelical  party  of 
the  Church  of  England  contains. .  .  .December  10,  a  letter  from  the  pen  of  Rev.  H. 
M.  Collisson,  of  Ottawa,  describing  the  progress  of  the  R.  E.  C. . .  .The  letter  is  fol¬ 
lowed  by  the  brief,  but  emphatic,  editorial  note:  ‘It  has  our  sympathy.’ — Ed. 
Rock”  (see  next.) 

Jan.  19.  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada  (Epis.  Rec.)  “  A 
correspondent  of  the  Dublin  Mail  sends  to  that  paper  an  interesting  comment  on  a 
book  bearing  the  above  designation  [R.  E.  C.],  which  is  well  worthy  the  attention 
of  our  rulers.  We  have  marked  in  italics  the  most  important  changes,  which  are 
all  in  the  right  direction,”  says  the  Rock.  Then  :  “  It  deserves  the  utmost  atten¬ 
tion  as  a  specimen  of  what  revisionists  intend  to  do,  or  have  done.  Few  will  be 
hardy  enough  to  deny  that  its  authors  are  men  of  singular  piety,  mental  clearness, 
and  learning.  The  principal  changes  are  [as  ix.  2.  Then] : 

“  This  revised  Prayer-Book  is  remarkable  for  its  modesty.  It  breathes  a  spirit 
of  true  devotion,  and  it  seems  hardly  possible,  by  any  ingenuity,  to  graft  a  Romish 
doctrine  on  any  of  its  expressions”  (xvii.,  March  22,  1876,  R.  E.  C.,  etc.) 

Jan.  19.  “You  can  not  make  it  a  success”  (Epis.  Rec.)  This  was  the  answer 
of  a  distinguished  layman  in  New  York,  when  asked :  “  Do  you  not  sympathize 
with  the  principles  which  underlie  our  work ? ”  “Certainly.”  “Are  you  not  con¬ 
vinced  of  the  need  of  reform?”  “Thoroughly.”  “  Are  you  not  satisfied  with  the 
amendments  made?”  “Yes.”  “You  ought  to  be  with  us  then  ;  tell  me  honestly 
the  reason  why  you  are  not?”  “  You  can  not  make  it  a  success  ”  (xix.  1;  xvii.  May 
5,  1875,  Rev.  Dr.  Newton.) 

Jan.  19.  Barnes’  “Position  of  the  Evangelical  Party  in  the  P.  E.  C. — copies 
for  sale”  (Epis.  Rec.)  [From  its  associations,  this  may  be  mistaken  for  a  work  ap¬ 
proved  by  the  R.  E.  C.  But  it  is  put  out  by  an  individual.  It  was  written  under 
excitement.  If  Mr.  Barnes  were  alive,  I  do  not  suppose  that  he  would  allow  it  to 
be  reprinted.  B.  A.]  (xix.  2.) 

Jan.  19.  Mexican  Prayer-Book.  The  editor  of  the  Epis.  Rec.,  who  is  a  presby¬ 
ter  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  says  :  “We  believe  *  our  sister  Church  ’  rejected  the  Prayer-Book 
on  account  of  its  Romish  Sacramentarianism,  and  have  a  service  book  of  their  own, 
which  is  Scriptural  and  thoroughly  Protestant.  They  revised  it  for  themselves. 
We  wish  the  Prayer-Book  of  their  eider  sister  was  as  free  from  objection  ”  (xix.  15.) 

Jan.  26.  Date  of  Easter  No.  I.  (Epis.  Rec.)  (General  principles) . xix.  16. 

Feb.  1.  Use  of  the  R.  E.  C.  (Appeal).  Bishop  Cheney,  in  his  sermon,  says:  “If 
to  an  Episcopal  Church,  with  its  Liturgy  and  its  robes  of  clerical  office,  had  been 
assigned  the  duty  of  Christianizing  the  world,  I  believe  that  the  map  would  have 
had  more  dark  spots  than  it  has  to-day.  The  Episcopalian  alone  never  could  have 
given  to  our  land  the  religious  blessings  it  to-day  enjoys.  It  required  Presbyterian 
adherence  to  doctrinal  truth,  and  Congregational  love  of  liberty,  and  Methodist 
enthusiasm  to  o  that  work.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  to  hold  our  American  Chris¬ 
tianity — to  keep  it  faithful  to  Jesus  our  Lord — we  must  have  the  educational  influ¬ 
ences  of  a  pure  and  evangelical  Liturgy.  God  has  a  work  for  all  His  Churches,  and 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


195 


1  February  1,  1876. 

for  His  individual  believers  too.  I  may  not  altogether  approve  what  some  workers 
for  Christ  may  do.  My  taste  may  revolt  from  their  methods.  But  God  uses  them. 
He  blesses  theiv  work  in  converting  souls.  And  ‘  what  am  I,  that  I  should  with¬ 
stand  God?’’’  (ix.  2;  xv.;  xix.  2;  xvii.  Jan.  5,  1876,  concerning  Bishops.) 

Feb.  1.  Free  Preaching  and  the  Parish  system  (Appeal) . xix.  11. 

Feb.  1.  Either  and  Neither  (Appeal).  The  Hartford  Churchman  of  January  8> 
1876,  says :  A  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Evening  Post  has  written  a  letter 
. . .  .criticising  the  pronunciation  of  certain  clergymen  while  reading  and  preach¬ 
ing - the  prevalent  utterance  of  the  words  God,  dog,  either,  and  neither.  The 

first  two  are  almost  invariably  pronounced  “  Gawd  ”  and  “  dawg,”  and  the  latter 
“itlier”  and  “nither.”. . .  .As  to  the  words  either  and  neither,  the  pronunciation  I 
have  condemned  is  an  affectation  borrowed  from  a  certain  class  of  speakers  in  Eng¬ 
land,  and  should  never  be  heard  from  the  lips  of  a  scholar.  Now.  “Gawd”  is  a 
localism  that  I  do  not  remember  to  have  heard  from  the  pulpit,  as  to  “  either  ” 
and  “neither,”  pronounced  as  above,  with  i  long  and  e  silent,  I  think  that  they 
were  introduced  into  this  country  along  with  the  Oxford  tracts  about  lorty  years 
ago,  and  from  experience  I  have  learned  to  regard  that  pronunciation  in  this 
country  as  probably  indicating  an  approval  of  those  tracts.  But  in  England, 
and  on  the  Continent,  in  1871-2  and  1875,  I  have  repeatedly  heard  the  pronuncia¬ 
tion  alternate  backwards  and  forwards,  as  different  clergymen  succeeded  each 
other  in  the  English  Church  service  ;  and  I  was  informed  that  i  long  and  e  silent 
indicated  Oxford,  while  e  long  and  i  silent  indicated  Cambridge.  B.  A.,  Passaic, 
N.  J.,  Jan.  8,  1876. 

Feb.  1.  The  Appeal  (Appeal).  The  Methodist  says:  “The  Appeal,  a  new 
paper  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  comes  to  us  from  Chicago,  with  the  name  of  our  old  friend. 
Dr.  Samuel  Fallows,  at  the  mast-head.  Success  to  the  Appeal  and  its  genial 
editor.”  [Dr.  Fallows  is  a  member  of  the  R.  E.  C.  (xvii.,  March  1,  Chicago).  The 
editor  of  Epis.  Rec.  is  not,  and  frequently  opposes  (xix.  2.)]  (xix.  18.) 

Feb:  2.  “  With  or  Under  ”  (Epis.  Rec.)  “  With  reference  to  the  editorial  under 
this  head  in  the  Episcopal  Recorder  of  Jan.  26,  1876,  I  will  quote,  from  memory, 
the  substance  of  the  remarks  of  Bishop  Cummins  at  the  consecration  of  Bishop 
Cheney,  in  Chicago,  on  Dec.  14,  1873 :  ‘  The  office,  rights,  and  duties  of  a  bishop  do 
not  descend  downward,  but  rise  upward  [suiting  the  motion  of  his  hand  to  his 
words].  They  do  not  come  from  his  succession  from  the  Apostles,  but  from  his 
election  to  that  office.  What  makes  General  Grant  the  President  ?  Not  the 
ceremonies  on  the  4th  of  March,  but  the  fact  that  he  was  elected  to  that  office, 
The  proceedings  on  the  4tli  of  March  were  simply  the  recognition  of  the  fact  of  his 
election  and  his  induction  into  office.’  B.  A.,  Passaic,  N.  J.”  (xix.  2.) 

Feb.  2.  Maryland  Colony  (Epis.  Rec.)  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill,  D.D.,  President  of 
Macalester  College  (xvii.  Dec.  29, 1875.  E.  D.  N.) 

Feb.  2.  Ladies’  Aid  Society  (Epis.  Rec.)  of  first  R.  E.  C.  in  New  York,  have 
expended  $1,100  during  the  year. 

Feb.  2.  Missionary  Jurisdiction  of  Ottawa  (Epis.  Rec  )  Standing  Committee  : 
Rev.  H.  M.  Collisson,  of  Ottawa;  Rev.  Johnston  McCormac,  Toronto;  and  Alexander 
Burritt  and  Henry  Alexander,  of  Ottawa,  call  for  funds  for  the  Algoma  Mission. 

Feb.  2.  Victoria  (Epis.  Rec.)  Dean  Gilson  formerly  resided  in  Victoria,  and 
was  a  great  favorite.  Dean  Cridge  and  his  congregation  having  joined  the  R.  E.  C., 


106 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


February  2,  1876. 

Bishop  Hills  induced  Dean  Gilson  to  return  to  Victoria.  He  lias  tendered  liis  resig¬ 
nation,  and  will  return  to  England  (I.  Nov.  4,  1874.) 

Feb.  2.  Bermuda  (Epis.  Rec.)  The  Free  Church  of  England,  at  St.  George’s, 
Bermuda,  is  flourishing,  says  a  letter  of  Jan.  14th. 

Feb.  2.  Date  of  Easter  No.  II.  (Epis.  Rec.)  General  principles,  (xix.  16.1 

Feb.  9.  Difference  P.  E.  C.  and  R.  E.  C.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Statement  by  the  Com¬ 
mittee  appointed  by  the  Council  for  that  purpose  (xvii.  May  12-18 ;  II.  J  uly  8 
1874.) 

Feb.  9.  Victoria  (Epis.  Rec.)  On  Jan.  16  the  new  church  was  first  used. 
Bishop  Cridge  of  the  R.  E.  C.;  Rev.  Mr.  Russ  of  the  Wesley  Church,  and  Rev.  Mr. 
McGregor  of  St.  Andrew’s  Presbyterian  Church,  joined  in  the  service,  and  the  last 
preached  the  sermon.  (See  March  1;  ix.  2;  xix.  2,  13.) 

Feb.  9.  Date  of  Easter  No.  III.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Errors  of  Jarvis,  (xix.  17.) 

Feb.  16.  Baltimore  Ordination.  (Epis.  Rec.)  H.  H.  Washburn,  Presbyter, 
and  W.  H.  Reynolds,  Deacon.  Rev.  Mr.  Washburn  is  about  thirty-four  years  of 
age,  a  graduate  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  New  York  ;  was  refused  by 
Bishop  Potter,  of  New  York,  and  by  Bishop  Paddock,  of  Massachusetts  (he  was  a 
citizen  of  Boston),  unless  he  would  spend  one  year  at  a  P.  E.  Seminary.  He  came 
to  Baltimore  in  December.  Mr.  Reynolds  is  a  native  of  Baltimore — spent  some 
time  in  the  Alexandria  P.  E.  Seminary.  Service  by  Mr.  Postletliwaite  ;  sermon  by 
Bishop  Cummins. 

Feb.  23.  Free  Church  of  England  (Epis.  Rec.)  Adopt  the  Revised  Prayer- 
Book  of  the  Revision  Society,  at  a  joint  meeting.  Omitting  certain  portions,  it 
can  be  sold  at  a  shilling.  Rev.  T.  E.  Thoresby  was  “  confident  it  would  do  them 
immense  service,  and  chiefly  so  because  it  was  a  revision  effected  by  those  who  were 
members  of  the  Church  of  England.  . .  .The  F.  C.  E.  ‘was  expressly  designed  for 
churchmen.’  ”  Lord  Ebury  “  did  not  know  whether  Bishop  Cummins  still  retained 
the  electric  touch,  but  he  supposed  that  would  not  be  disputed.”  (xv.  15;  xix.  2.) 

Feb.  23.  Date  of  Easter  No.  IV.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Errors  of  Seabury.  (xix.  18.) 

Feb.  24.  Let  well  enough  alone,  (xix.  1.) 

Feb.  25.  Bishop  Nicholson  (Herald).  Letter  from  Philadelphia  relating  to 
the  consecration.  “  Growth  of  the  movement.”  “Declaration  of  principles.”  (See 
March  1.  Consecration.) 

Feb.  26.  Lent.  (Times)  reports  that  at  the  conference  on  Feb.  25  there  apx)eared 
to  be  a  general  disposition  to  abolish  Lent.  (See  March  1.) 

Feb.  27.  Lent  (Times).  H.  B.  Turner,  Sec.  Gen.  Council,  contradicts  the 
report  in  the  Times  of  yesterday.  (See  March  1.  Lent.) 

March  1.  Chicago  (Toronto  Globe)  correspondent  of  Feb.  25  says:  “There  is 
no  denying  the  fact  that. . .  .the  ‘  R.  E.  C.’  has  achieved  a  gratifying  success  in  this 
city. .  .  .and  with  all  the  Christian  charity  and  grace  that  is  the  heritage  of  the 
Episcopalians,  it  is  not  a  pleasant  sight  for  the  ‘  elder  brethren  ’ ....  It  is  only  about 
a  year  ago  that  Mr.  Cheney.  . .  .espied  a  splendid  church  edifice.  . .  .unused. . .  .The 
owner  had  closed  it. ..  .He  permitted  the  Cheneyites  to  use  it. .  .  .The  heating 
apparatus  would  not  work,  and  so  amid  the  ill-concealed  laughter  of  the  faithful, 
the  ‘  Schismatics  ’  were  frozen  out.  Dr.  Cheney,  however,  was  not  to  be  thwarted 
by  any  such  misadventure ...  .He  found  an  old  frame  building. ..  .At  Easter,  a 
permanent  organization  was  effected. . .  .The  church  extended  a  call  to  Rev.  Samuel 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


197 


March  1,  1876. 

Fallows,  D.D.  Tlie  Doctor  was  at  that  time  President  of  the  Wesleyan  Univer¬ 
sity.  . .  .Dr.  Fallows  entered  the  ministry  of  the  new  clnirch.  Under  his  care  the 
church  has  prospered  wonderfully.  Fallows  is  a ‘worker.’  He  was  a  tutor  in  a 
Wisconsin  University  when  the  war  broke  out,  and  immediately  resigned  his  posi¬ 
tion  to  accept  the  post  of  chaplain.  . .  .He  organized  a  regiment  and  fought  his  way 
to  a  Generalship.  Wlipn  the  war  closed  he  turned  Methodist  minister  and  had  a 
church  in  Milwaukee.  Then  he  was  elected  State  Superintendent  of  Instruction 
for  Wisconsin,  and  became  a  Regent  of  the  Methodist  University.  From  that 
position  he  went  to  Bloomington,  in  this  State,  to  accept  the  position  of  President 
of  the  Wesleyan  College.  He  is  an  eloquent  preacher,  and  in  all  the  departments 
of  labor  that  a  ‘  live  ’  minister  can  enter  into  nowadays,  he  is  foremost.  ..  .They 
quickly  decided  upon  a  change  to  more  commodious  quarters. ..  .The  vigorous 
prosperity  of  the  Reformed  Church  offers  a  marked  contrast  to  the  torpor  which 
prevails  in  the  churches  of  the  regular  establishment.”  (xvii.  Jan.  1,  1876.  Ap¬ 
peal.) 

March.  1.  Christian  Union.  (Appeal).  At  the  consecration  of  Bishop  Nichol¬ 
son  on  Feb.  24,  “  Bishop  Simpson  and  Rev.  Dr.  Hatfield  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  Rev.  Drs.  Beadle  and  Blackwood  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  (the 
former  belonging  originally  to  the  Scotch  Covenanters),  assisted  Bishops  Cummins 
and  Cheney  in  the  formal  act  of  consecration,  by  laying  their  hands  upon  Dr. 
Nicholson’s  head.”  (ix.  2  ;  xix.  2). 

March  1.  Lent.  (Appeal).  C.  E.  C.  (Bishop  Cheney),  shows  the  advantages  of 
keeping  this  anniversary,  but  avoiding  its  abuse,  (xix.  2  ;  xvii.  March  8,  Lent ; 
March  15,  Lent;  April  1,  Lent). 

March  1.  Victoria.  (Appeal),  (see  xvii.  Feb.  9.)  “The  choir  of  the  church 
was  assisted  by  the  members  of  St.  John’s  (Ch.  of  Eng.),  Presbyterian,  and  Wes¬ 
leyan  Churches  ...The  present  congregation ...  .have  built  and  furnished  two 
churches. ..  .subscribing  and  disbursing  in  six  years  nearly  $45,000.”  (xvii. 
Feb.  9,  1876). 

March  1.  Church  Union.  (Appeal).  On  the  fourth  Sunday  in  January,  the 
rector  (Rev.  J.  K.  Dunn)  exchanged  pulpits  with  Rev.  J.  S.  Chadwick,  pastor  of 
“  Trinity  Methodist  E.  Ch.”  in  Louisville,  Ky.  (ix.  2  ;  xix.  2). 

March  1.  Baltimore.  (Appeal).  “  Ch.  of  Redeemer,”  Rev.  W.  M.  Postle- 
thwaite  ;  “Rock  of  Ages,”  Rev.  H.  H.  Washburn  ;  “  Emmanuel,”  Rev.  F.  H.  Rey¬ 
nolds.  “Another  church,  it  is  expected,  will  be  inaugurated  soon  in  this  city.” 

March  1.  Philadelphia.  (Appeal).  2d  R.  E.  C.  occupied  their  new  building 
on  Jan.  30.  Emmanuel,  on  Feb.  20,  removed  to  corner  of  E.  York  and  Sep  viva 
streets,  of  which  the  basement  is  ready  for  present  use. 

March  1.  The  one  Apostolic  Canon.  (Appeal).  “  Do  the  wisest  and  best 
thing  under  the  given  circumstances,  which  will  accomplish  the  end  in  view.” 

March  1.  Differences  P.  E.  C.  and  E.  E.  C.  (Appeal),  (xvii.  May  12-18). 

March  1.  Imitating,  but  abusing,  No.  1.  (Appeal),  (xix.  12). 

March  1.  Why  Divide?  (Appeal).  Bishop  Cummins  says:  “To  present  to 
the  world  a  community  with  an  Episcopal  polity,  and  yet  with  Bishops  claiming  no 
superiority  in  rank  above  that  of  other  Presbyters  ;  and  to  show  that  a  noble  old 
Liturgy,  freed  from  all  traces  of  Sacerdotalism,  could  be  retained  in  perfect  harmony 
with  freedom  in  prayer. . .  .holding  historic  connection  with  the  Church  of  Eng- 


198 


CHAPTER  XYII. 


March  1,  1875. 

land.  ..  .reuniting,  not  dividing;  healing,  not  perpetuating  the  alienation  among 
the  children  of  the  Reformation. . .  a  church  polity  which  gives  unity,  order, 
strength;  without  the  evils  of  a  hierarchy ...  .To  us  it  is  the  old  house  of  our 

fathers,  only  cleansed  from  all  defilement _ The  saintly  Dr.  Arnot,  of  Edinburgh, 

...  .on  the  very  day  of  the  organization  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  wrote  the  following  letter, 
2d  Dec.,  1873. . .  ‘  1st.  That  absolute  errors  should  be  eliminated  from  authorized 
formularies.  2d.  That  the  Liturgy  should  not  be  oppressive  in  quantity,  nor  im¬ 
posed  so  as  to  exclude  free  prayer  in  the  public  assembly  ;  and  3d.  That  the  Bish¬ 
ops  should  be  the  wisest  and  gravest  of  the  ministers  chosen  and  set  apart  to  su¬ 
perintend  a  district  chosen  by  the  Church  itself.’. . .  .By  a  remarkable  coincidence, 
the  very  conditions,  •'  a  reciprocal  approach,  even  to  the  extent  of  union  between 
the  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian  Churches,’. . .  .were  adopted  as  the  distinctive  prin¬ 
ciples  of  our  Church,  on  the  very  day  he  penned  these  words.”  (ix.  2;  xi.;  xix.  2). 

March.  1.  Church  Union.  (Epis.  Rec.)  In  Philadelphia,  Emmanuel  R.  E.  C., 
on  Feb.  20,  Rev.  J.  S.  Malone  of  the  R.  E.  C.  ;  Rev.  R.  Wimer,  Methodist  ;  and 
Rev.  W.  T.  Eva,  Presbyterian,  joined  in  the  morning  service,  and  Bishop  Nichol¬ 
son  preached  in  the  evening. 

March  1.  Consecration  of  Bp.  Nicholson  (Epis.  Rec.)  on  Feb.  24,  with  the 
address  by  Bp.  Cheney,  in  full.  (xvii.  March  1,  Ch.  Union). 

March  1.  Lent.  (Epis.  Pec.)  On  Feb.  25,  at  the  conference  of  those  collected 
in  Philadelphia,  this  subject  was  discussed.  (See  March  6,  Ottawa.  March  15, 
Bait.) 

March  1.  Conference  at  Philadelphia.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Discussion  of  Lent,  as 
above.  Rev.  H.  M.  Collisson  thinks  that  a  special  committee  on  church  discipline 
should  be  chosen  by  the  communicants  exclusively  (xix.  3),  Conference  recom¬ 
mends  the  General  Standing  Committee  to  change  the  date  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Council  to  May  12,  [this  has  been  done] ;  and  to  select  delegates  to  other  churches. 
[Bishop  Cummins  and  Dr.  Leacock  were  selected  as  delegates  to  the  Reformed 
(Dutch)  Church  in  America  ;  Bishop  Nicholson  and  Dr.  Neill  to  the  General  As¬ 
sembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  Rev.  Edward  (Dean)  Cridge  and  Rev.  H.  M. 
Collisson  to  the  Free  Church  of  England  ;  and  Bishop  Cummins  to  present  the  salu¬ 
tation  of  the  R.  E.  C.  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  E.  C.] 

March  6.  Ottawa  Peport.  (Ottawa  Times).  Rev.  H.  M.  Collisson,  reporting 
the  consecration  of  Bishop  Nicholson,  and  the  participation  of  other  denominations, 
says :  “  When,  after  this  interesting  ceremonjq  Bishop  Cummins  returned  to  the 
vestry,  he  threw  up  his  hands  with  a  joyful  exclamation :  *  This  day,’  he  said,  ‘is  a 
day  worth  living  to  see.  No  such  scene  has  been  witnessed  for  centuries  in  the 
Episcopal  Church.’ . . .  .The  general  feeling  seemed  to  me  to  be,  that  where  prac¬ 
ticable  it  would  be  well  to  hold  special  mission  services  during  Lent.” 

March  8.  Lent.  By  Bishop  Nicholson.  (Epis.  Rec.)  “  I  regard  the  Lenten 
season  as  presenting  a  favorable  opportunity  for  a  protracted  series  of  special  re¬ 
ligious  meetings  for  worship  and  Bible  instruction. . .  .as  one  eminently  fitting  time 
for  the  reanimating  of  Christian  zeal,  and  the  awakening  of  the  impenitent ...  . 
Fasting  is  never  of  any  spiritual  profit  when  it  is  done  for  the  sake  of  Lent. . .  .In 
the  Reformed  book  that  table  of  fasts  has  been  expunged,  nor  is  there  mentioned  a 
single  day  of  fasting  in  all  the  book. . .  .May  God  bless  our  Lenten  season  !  May 
He  suffuse  it  with  the  freedom  of  the  Gospel,”  etc.  [This  agrees  with  the  principles 
of  the  R.  E.  C.  (xix.  2).] 


CHAPTER  5VII. 


199 


March  8,  1876. 

March  8.  Carey  Ordination.  (Epis.  Rec.)  (xix.  10). 

March  8.  “Consecration  or  Ordination.”  (Epis.  Rec.)  ‘‘Lux,”  otherwise 
“  Zoar,  Iota,  and  Common  Sense,”  is  afraid  of  having  more  bishops  in  this  Episcopal 
Church,  (xix.  2). 

March  15.  Baltimore.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Ch.  of  the  Redeemer,  lately  completed, 
was  dedicated  on  12tli  by  Bishop  Cummins,  who  was  assisted  by  Rev.  W.  Postle- 
tli  waite,  the  pastor.  The  Bishop  said  :  ‘‘We  have  50  congregations,  60  clergy¬ 
men,  and  3  bishops. . .  .Our  Church  has  met  attacks  from  many  quarters,  but  has 
withstood  them  all.  Only  a  short  time  ago  the  press  from  Maine  to  California  was 
full  of  abuse,  telling  how  her  people  had  refused  to  keep  Lent.  There  is  no 
foundation  for  the  statement.  That  Lent  is  abused  we  very  well  know,  but  not  by 
us.”  (xix.  2.) 

March  15.  Dr.  Leacock  on  Lent-  (Epis.  Rec.)  He  agrees  with  Bishop 
Nicholson  (March  8,  above),  “  but  I  must  go  a  little  farther  than  he  has  gone.  . .  .To 
fast  and  pray  with  renewed  diligence  at  a  certain  period  of  the  year,  because  it  is  a 
time-honored  custom,  is  no  part  of  that  Gospel  system  which  is  joy  and  peace  in 
believing.”  (xix.  2.) 

March  18.  Lent  by  “Albany.”  (Chn.)  He  says:  “I  would  suggest  to  our 
friends  who  call  themselves  the  ‘  R.  E.  C.,’  that  while  some  of  them  are  proposing 
to  abolish  the  season  of  Lent,  they  may  as  well  make  a  clean  thing  of  it  and 
eliminate  the  Lord’s  Day  also  from  the  calendar.”  [This  sounds  as  if  “  Albany  ” 
thinks  these  stand  on  a  par,  either  that  the  keeping  of  Sunday  is  simply  a  question 
of  expediency,  or  the  keeping  of  Lent  a  positive  obligation.] 

March  22.  Abolishing  Lent.  (Epis.  Rec.)  The  editor  criticises  the  above,  and 
says  :  “  It  would  add  a  zest  to  the  enjoyment  if  we  knew  who  ‘  Albany  ’  was. .  .  .if 
the  conjecture  proved  correct  that  ‘  G.  Albanensis  ’  would  be  the  full  and  proper 
ecclesiastical  designation  (xx.  1).  When  the  words  apostates,  perjured,  fallen, 
schismatics,  have  been  freely  hurled  at  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  R.  E.  C., 
it  is  certainly  agreeable  that  all  this  should  be  dropped,  and  the  title  *  our  friends 
substituted.”  He  then  advocates  the  abolition  of  Lent,  [and  having  a  part  of  his 
paper  headed  R.  E.  C.,  probably  creates  the  public  impression  that  this  represents 
the  views  of  the  R.  E.  C.]  (xvii.  Feb.  1,  1876,  Appeal,  xix.  2.) 

March.  22.  R.  E.  C.  Prayer-Book.  (Epis.  Rec.)  (see  Jan.  19,  Book,  etc.,  then 
add),  “  The  preface  is  a  noble  work,  charitable,  masterly,  and  clear. . .  .In  the  Com¬ 
munion  Service  the  prefatory  prayer  follows  exactly  that  of  the  Prayer-Book  of 
1552,  omitting  the  side  rubrics. . .  .It  may  be  useful  to  add,  that  substantially  the 
alterations  are  few.’’  (xix.  2.) 

March  29.  Free  Church  of  England.  (Epis.  Rec.)  At  the  quarterly  meeting 
of  the  Council,  held  on  Feb.  8,  it  was  “  Resolved,  That  the  future  Bishops  of  this 
Church  shall  be  consecrated  or  set  apart  to  their  office  in  accordance  with  the  form 
of  consecrating  a  Bishop,  as  revised  and  set  forth  by  the  Second  General  Council  of 
the  R.  E.  C.,  and  that  it  be  a  special  recommendation  of  the  Council  to  the  Convo¬ 
cation  [analogous  to  the  General  Council  of  the  R.  E.  C.]  that  at  the  consecration 
of  future  Bishops  of  the  F.  C.  E.  a  consecrated  Bishop  or  Bishops,  and  three  or  more 
Presbyters,  be  invited  to  conduct  the  ceremony  of  Consecration,”  proposed  by  Mr. 
Merryweather,  seconded  by  Rev.  P.  X.  Eldridge,  and  carried  with  only  two 
dissentients. 


200 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


April  1,  1876. 

April  1.  Lent  (Appeal).  C.  E.  C.  (Bishop  Cheney)  under  the  head  of  “A  Man 
of  Straw/’  says  :  “  Suddenly  a  false  rumor  gains  publicity  that  this  Church  ‘  pro¬ 
poses  to  abolish  Lent.’  It  is  flashed  by  telegraph  all  over  the  land. . .  .All  three  of 
the  Bishops  of  our  Church,  as  well  as  the  Secretary  of  our  General  Council,  have 
denied  the  report  in  the  most  positive  manner.”  (xix.  2.) 

April  1.  The  Old  Church  (Appeal).  Bishop  Cheney,  in  his  sermon  in  Newark 
Feb.  27,  said :  “  The  papers  and  pulpits  of  the  old  Church — and  we  love  it  still — 
call  us  schismatics,”  etc.  [All  that  we  contemplated  in  founding  the  new  was  to 
have  “  the  old  Church  ”  as  it  used  to  be.  (xix.  2.)]. 

April  1.  Imitating,  but  abusing,  No.  2  (Appeal).  [A  part  only  is  here  given. 
(See  xix.  13,  14.)]. 

April  1.  Revision  in  Ireland  (Appeal).  G.  D.  C.  (Bishop  Cummins)  gives  the 
votes  on  revision,  under  the  rule  adopted  that  a  change  should  require  a  two-thirds 
vote.  A  few  minor  alterations  were  made,  when  “  a  terrible  outcry  arose  from  the 
High-Church  school. . .  .A  copy  of  our  Prayer-Book  was  forwarded  to  them. . .  .and 
they  have  determined  to  reprint  it  in  Dublin  as  an  ally  in  the  prosecution  of  their 
own  work  of  revision  . .  .The  Synod  must  either  yield  to  the  demand  of  so  vast  a 
majority  of  the  Irish  Church,  and  complete  the  work  of  Prayer-Book  purification,  or 
the  evangelical  men  will  go  forth  from  their  midst  and  free  themselves  from  such 
bondage.  In  either  event,  there  will  be  at  no  distant  day  a  R.  E.  C.  in  Ireland.” 
(xix.  2.) 

April  1.  Council  in  Canada  (Appeal).  “  The  meeting  of  the  Council  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  at  Ottawa,  next  July,  will  mark  an  era  in  the  history  of  Protestantism  on 
this  continent.  A  council  composed  mainly  of  American  subjects  meets  in  the 
capital  of  British  North  America,  to  legislate  for  a  Church  extending  in  one  organ¬ 
ization  through  two  nations,”  etc.  (xix.  2.) 

April  1.  Lent  (Appeal).  Opinions  of  Dr.  Fallows,  Bishop  Nicholson,  Dr.  Lea¬ 
cock,  H.  B.  Turner,  Esq.  (See  above,  April  1,  Bishop  Cheney  ;  xix.  2.) 

April  5.  Philadelphia  (Epis.  Rec.)  3d  R.  E.  C.  is  at  Germantown,  and  on 
April  0  will  formally  occupy  their  new  chapel,  corner  of  Wayne  and  Chelten  ave¬ 
nues. 

April  5.  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (Epis.  Rec.)  Church  of  the  Incarnation  was  organ¬ 
ized  March  1,  1874.  On  April  2,  1876,  it  will  remove  to  better  quarters  in  a  church 
edifice  corner  of  Gates  avenue  and  Irving  place. 

April  12.  Rev.  W.  Sparrow,  D.D.  (Epis.  Rec.)  “  The  Life  and  Correspond^ 
ence  of  Rev.  William  Sparrow,  D.D.,  late  Professor  of  Systematic  Divinity  aud 
Evidences  in  the  P.  E.  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Diocese  of  Virginia  ”  [and  my 
fellow-student  in  Col.  Coll.]  “By  Rev.  C.  Walker,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Church 
History  and  Canon  Law.  1876.”  This  reviewer  says  :  “  In  relation  to  the  with¬ 
drawal  of  Bishop  Cummins,  and  the  organization  of  the  Reformed  branch  of  the 
E.  C. . .  .lie  conceded  entire  sincerity  and  conscientiousness  to  the  founders. . .  .and 
disapproved  of  the  abuse. . .  .by  the  High-Church  and  Evangelical  press  generally, 
and  bv  many  evangelical  men.  *  The  compiler  adds  (p.  350) :  ‘  No  less  strongly  did 
he  object  to  the  course  of  some  of  his  Evangelical  brethren  in  another  respect,  as 
inconsistent  alike  with  their  principles  and  with  those  upon  which  the  Reformation 
itself  can  alone  be  justified,’  The  allusion  here  is  to  the  ‘  profound  sorrow,  and  no 
sympathy/  (II.  Dec.  l,card.). .  /  The  public  declaration. .  .seeming  to  involve  the 


CHAPTER  XYII. 


201 


April  12,  1876. 

confession  that  they  were  properly  suspected  and  needed  such  a  purge  to  take  away 
the  suspicion.’  (ix.  9.)  In  a  letter  of  Dec.  12,  1873,  he  says:  ‘I  am  often  ques¬ 
tioned.  . .  .  What  do  you  think  of  the  Bishop  Cummins  movement  ?  ’.  . .  ‘  the  counsel 
of  Gamaliel.’  It  is  painful  to  see  how  Evangelical  men,  so  called,  join  in  the  hue 
and  cry  against  him,  just  as  if  there  had  never  been  any  agreement  between  him 
and  them.  That  declaration !  The  life  for  long  years  of  its  signers  proves  the 
reverse  of  that  disclaimer.  All  Evangelical  Episcopalians  have  had  and  professed 
the  same  grievances,  and  have  contemplated  the  possibility  of  a  secession  in  conse¬ 
quence.  How,  then,  when  one  of  their  number  makes  the  possibility  actual,  can 
they  in  a  moment  reverse  the  engine  and  move  backward?  They  might  think 
Cummins’  mode  of  procedure  unwise  ;  but  the  procedure  itself  is  only  what  their 
hearts  have  been  craving  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  I  had  a  letter  from  New  York 
this  evening,  saying  this  movement  is  likely  to  spread.  If  it  should,  it  will  cer¬ 
tainly  ease  the  yoke  from  our  neck.  Some  fear  that  the  next  General  Convention 
will  tighten  the  screws  yet  further.  I  hold  the  very  opposite.  Who  knows  but 
God  means  to  use  Bishop  Cummins  as  an  instrument  for  our  release  from  the 
bondage  imposed  by  a  heartless  majority,  who  will  not  believe  in  the  scruples  of 
tender  consciences.  His  success  may  liberalize  us  and  bring  him  and  us  together 
again,  (xiv.  4,  5,6.)  If,  on  the  other  hand,  our  General  Convention  should  become 
more  stringent  towards  Low-Churchmen  and  more  indulgent  towards  High-Cliurcli- 
men,  then  the  R.  E.  C.  would  be  a  city  of  refuge,  and  soon  overshadow  its  rival, 
(xix.  13.)  The  P.  E.  C.  needs  only  to  be  liberalized  and  rid  of  Romish  germs  to 
overspread  this  continent,  at  least  in  the  upper  and  middle  state  of  society.”  “  The 
false  and  exaggerated  notions  about  schism  do  us  much  harm  [xii.j  There  are 
already  at  least  four  Episcopal  churches  in  the  United  States.  What  is  the  great 
harm  if  a  fifth  should  be  added,  especially  when  it  would  give  peace  where  there  is 
now  war  [xii.  43],  and  where  the  Gospel  would  be  better  suited  to  the  wants  of 
society  thereby.  But  I  stop.  I  have  written  in  a  great  hurry,  and  for  you  alone.” 
“  On  the  17th  of  January  following,  Dr.  Sparrow  departed  this  life.” 

April  13.  Disposition  to  change,  (xix.  4.) 

April  26.  Church  Journal  (Epis.  Rec.)  “  A  Superstitious  Episcopalian  ’’  in 
the  Church  Journal  of  April  20,  says :  “  Reformed  Episcopal — a  memorable  service. 
‘  One  of  the  most  important  and  memorable  scenes  since  the  Reformation,  took 
place  at  the  consecration  of  the  Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  as  a  Bishop  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  Bishop  Simpson  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hatfield  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  and  the 
Rev.  Drs.  Beadle  and  Blackwood  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  (the  former  belonging 
originally  to  the  Scotch  Covenanters),  assisted  Bishops  Cummins  and  Cheney  in 
the  formal  act  of  consecration,  by  laying  their  hands  upon  Dr.  Nicholson’s  head.’ 
We  insert  the  above  cutting  from  the  Cumminsite  organ  of  May,  1876.  We  hope 
our  readers  will  bear  it  in  mind.  It  is  worth  while  looking  at  the  succession  as  it 
stands.  1st,  Assistant  Bishop  Cummins  a  failure  in  Kentucky.  2d,  Cheney,  a 
deposed  presbyter  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  consecrated  Bishop  by  Cummins.  3d,  Nicholson, 
a  Methodist  clergyman,  re-ordained  in  the  Church,  then  degraded,  then  consecrated 
Bishop  by  Cummins  and  Cheney,  two  Methodists,  one  Scotch  Covenanter,  and  one 
Presbyterian.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  their  next  Bishop  will  have  this  wonderful 
trio  of  Bishops  to  give  him  Episcopal  Orders  ;  and  if  they  could  only  add  one  or 
two  Quakers,  a  Congregationalist  Deacon,  a  Plymouth  brother,  and  a  Methodist 


202 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


April  26,  1876. 

class-leader,  his  ordination  would  be  about  right.”  *  Signed,  “A  Superstitious 
Episcopalian.”  (II.  Dec.  11,  1873;  Dec.  4,  Ch.  ;  Jan.  1,  1874,  Apos. ;  Jan.  22,  Ap. 
and  Bp.  ;  Jan.  29;  April  30;  xiii.  10,  12,  13  ;  II.  Dec.  31,  So.  Ch. ;  xvii.  March  1, 
1876,  Ch.  Union.) 

May  1.  New  York  (Times).  At  the  first  R.  E.  C.  in  New  York,  twenty-nine 
persons  confirmed  yesterday.  They  have  purchased  a  plot  of  ground,  75x100,  on 
Madison  avenue,  corner  of  Fifty-fifth  street,  for  $42,500,  on  which  to  build  a  new 
church.  Also,  at  the  second  R.  E.  C.  in  the  evening,  the  Bishop  received  from  a 
class  of  twelve,  the  confirmation  of  their  Baptismal  obligations,  he  explaining  to 
them,  that  they  confirmed  to  him,  and  were  not  confirmed  by  him. — B.  A.  (Jan.  1, 
1876.) 

May  8.  New  York.  Yesterday  the  Rev.  W.  T.  Sabine,  in  his  address  on  the 
second  anniversary  of  the  1st  R.  E.  C.,  corner  of  Madison  avenue  and  Forty-seventh 
street,  stated  that  during  the  last  year  the  parish  had  expended  $20,134.95,  of  which 
$12,654.48  were  for  parish  expenses,  and  $7,480.47  for  extra  parochial  purposes  of 
benevolence.  In  addition  to  this,  they  have  about  $40,000  subscribed  and  largely 
paid  in  towards  making  up  the  full  sum  of  $42,500  to  pay  cash  for  the  three  lots 
corner  of  Madison  avenue  and  Fifty-fifth  street,  in  place  of  leaving  any  part  on 
mortgage  as  authorized  by  the  conditions  of  sale. — B.  A.  (xvii.  May  1,  New  York.) 

May  24.  Methodist  General  Conference  (Epis.  Rec.)  The  Christian  Advo¬ 
cate  of  May  20,  gives  in  full  the  address  of  Bishop  Cummins  to  the  Conference, 
which  “Resolved:  ‘That  we....  will  in  due  time  respond  officially  by  our  repre¬ 
sentative,  bearing  our  regards. . . . adopted  by  a  unanimous  rising  vote.” 

May  24.  Cumberland,  Md.  (Epis.  Roc.)  A  new  R.  E.  C.  organized,  with 
Rev.  J.  K.  Dunn  as  pastor. 

May  24.  Digby,  N.  S.  (Epis.  Rec.)  A  new  R.  E.  C.  organized  on  Monday 
May  15,  and  $588  subscribed. 

May  25.  Chicago.  (B.  A.)  A  private  letter  states  that  on  last  Monday  Bishop 
Cheney  announced  that  a  subscription  of  about  $30,000  had  been  completed  to  pay 
off  the  entire  debt  of  Christ  Church  in  two  years. 


June  1.  The  Appeal  contains  the  following  :  1st.  Exchange  of  pulpits  by  Bishop  Cheney 
and  Rev.  Dr.  Tiffany,  of  the  M.  E.  C.— 2d.  Officers  of  the  new  R.  K.  C.,  in  Cumberland,  Md.— 3d. 
Methodist  clergymen  join  in  the  Communion  service  with  Rev.  W.  M.  Postlethwaite,  of  the  R.  E.  C. — 
4th.  A  new  R.  E.  C.  to  he  erected  in  the  heart  of  St.  John,N.  B. — 5th.  Officers  of  the  new  R.  E.  C. 
at  Digby,  N.  S.— 6th.  A  new  R.  E.  C.  organized  in  Charleston,  S.  C. — 7th.  The  R.  E.  C.  in 
Rappahannock  County,  Va.,  is  doing  a  good  work. — 8th,  Address  of  Bishop  Cummins  to  the  M.  E. 
Conference,  in  full. — 9th.  “  Our  Episcopacy,”  by  B.  B.  L.,  contains  positions  opposed  to  (xix.  1, 2), 
10th.  Bishop  Cummins’  remarks  on  his  change  of  views  respecting  the  Prayer-Book  of  1789. — 11th. 
“Corsica.”  With  respect  to  Florida,  “  Corsica  ”  should  be  written  Minorca. — 12th.  “Liturgical 
Emendation,”  editorial  without  signature,  is  opposed  to  (xix.  1). 

June  7.  Episcopal  Recorder  contains :  1st.  Addresses  to  the  Presbyterian  General 
Assembly,  by  Rev.  E.  D.  Neill,  and  by  Bishop  Nicholson,  of  the  R.  E.  0.  The  latter  in  full,  in 

which  he  says  :  “I  have  noticed  to-day  in  your  published  report _ that  in  the  year  1700  you  had 

in  this  country,  three  ministers,  and  in  1750  sixty-seven  ministers,  an  increase  of  sixty-four  m 
fifty  years.” — 2d.  Officers  of  the  new  R.  E.  C  ,  at  Restein  Hall,  of  June  4,  with  Rev.  J.  L.  Estlin, 
pastor.— 3d.  New  R.  E.  C.  at  Rahway,  N.  J.,  inaugurated  June  4th,  in  their  own  church  building. — 
4th.  In  Boston,  a  congregation  formerly  of  the  P.  E.  C  ,  has  applied  for  admission  into  the  R.  E.  C. — 
5th.  The  R.  E.  C.  at  Victoria,  B.  C.  has  received  $19,355.98  in  sixteen  months,  and  will  pay  the 
expenses  of  Dean  Cridge  to  Ottawa,  to  be  consecrated  Bishop  of  the  R.  E.  C.— 6th.  Rev.  A.  H.  Vinton, 
and  Mr.  C.  H.  Parker,  of  Rev.  Phillip  Brooks’  parish,  have  been  left  off  the  Standing  Committee, 
as  supposed  because  a  son  of  Bishop  Nicholson  of  the  R.  E.  C.  was  married  to  a  member  of  Mr. 
Brooks’  church,  in  the  church  ol  Mr.  Vinton,  by  Mr.  Brooks  and  Bishop  Nicholson.  And  in  Boston, 
I  (B.  A.)  saw  a  printed  Pastoral  by  Mr.  Vinton,  maintaining  that  the  excluding  Canon  does  not 
apply  to  such  cases,  (xii.  59.) 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


CONTINUATION  OF  CHAPTER  III. 


RESPECTING  THE  PAN-ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

1875. 

April  14.  Ritualism  in  Maryland  (Epis.  Rec.)  “G.  M.  B.”  says  :. . . The 
recent  experiment  made  by  two  of  our  prominent  ‘  Low  Church  ’  rectors,  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  the  range  and  calibre  of  the  *  ne  w  canon  ’  against  Ritualism 
. . .  .turned  against  the  ‘  priests  ’  of  St.  Luke’s  . .  .for  ‘  prayers  for  the  dead  ’.  . .  .  The 
Standing  Committee. ..  .endorsed  the  propriety  of  the  charges. ..  .Bishop  Whit- 
tingham  summarily  quashed  the  whole  proceeding.”  (III.  Oct.  23,  31,  1874.) 

April  21.  Comprehensiveness  (E.  R.)  “  Paul  ”  says Dr.  Andrews,  of  Vir¬ 

ginia,  said  to  the  writer  of  this  article  :  ‘  Some  men  try  to  be  so  comprehensive  that 
they  never  comprehend  anything.’  ”  He  then  goes  on  to  show  the  “  superstitions  ” 
that  are  maintained  by  the  ruling  majority,  who  refuse  to  allow  those  who  think 
differently  to  act  upon  their  convictions,  (xii.  56-59.) 

April  22.  Prayer-Book  Revision  (Weekly  Dispatch,  St.  Thomas,  Ont., 
Canada).  Editor  says  :  “  The  breach  in  the  P.  E.  C.  appears  to  be  continually 
widening.  In  Toronto,  the  Church  Association,  which  numbers  within  its  ranks 
some  of  the  most  intelligent  men  of  the  Province,  and  throughout  the  United 
States  and  in  Canada  the  R.  E.  C.  were  assiduously  prosecuting  the  work  of  refor¬ 
mation,  and  not  before  it  is  needed.  Throughout  Europe,  too,  the  anti-ritualistic 
party  is  increasing. . .  .On  all  sides  publications  in  pamphlet  form  and  in  the  news¬ 
papers  are  multiplied. . .  .Our  latest  extract  from  the  address  of  the  hiearchy  of  the 
Church  of  England  impresses  upon  the  laity  the  duty  of  promoting  ‘  loyal  con¬ 
formity  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,’  and  we  will  add  that,  until  the  laity  insist 
upon  a  revision  of  that  book  (the  best  prayer-book  extant),  Ritualism  and  Romish 
tendencies  will  continue  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church.”  (xviii.  Jan.  1,  19  ; 
xvii.  April  1,  1876.) 

May  1.  Church  Association  (Day  Star  of  Toronto).  On  June  19, 1873,  thirty- 
seven  clergymen  and  laymen  of  the  Diocese  of  Toronto  organized  themselves  into  an 
association  “  to  uphold  the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Church  of 
England,  and  to  counteract  the  efforts  now  being  made  to  pervert  her  teaching.” 
(III.  Jan.  14, 1875.) 

June  9.  Retirement  of  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Cotton  Smith  (Cli.  St.).  In  retiring  from 
the  position  of  Editor-in-Chief,  Dr.  Smith  says :  “  What  was  then  the  Protestant 
Churchman,  and  which  was  subsequently  merged  into  the  Church  and  tState,  natur¬ 
ally  calls  for  some  fuller  statement  as  to  the  position  which  this  paper  has  occupied 

(203) 


204 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


June  9,  1875. 

...  .to  labor  for  a  lost  unity.  . .  .It  is  tlie  genius  of  sectarianism  to  tolerate  no  di¬ 
versity.  .  .  .It  is  tlie  genius  of  Catholicity  to  embrace  all  diversities  which  can  be 
reconciled  with  ‘  Apostolic  Order  ’  and  ‘  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  \  . . . 
These  schools. . .  .are  high,  low,  and  broad. . .  .each  of  them  has  a  legitimate  place 
in  the  Church,  but  each  is  liable  to  the  danger  of  an  excessive  development. . . . 
In  the  famous  conferences  between  1865  and  1870,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  it 
was  then  shown  conclusively  that  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  was 
legitimately  deducible  from  the  formularies  of  the  Church. .  .  .It  was  the  purpose 
. . .  .to  embody. . .  .in  an  organization,  the  views  and  principles  of. . .  .Dr.  Muhlen¬ 
berg,  and  to  maintain  both  the  Catholic  and  Evangelical  elements  in  the  Church. 
Had  this  effort  been  successful,  it  is  not  too  much  to  claim  that  the  organization  of 
the  R  E.  C.  would  never  have  taken  place.”  (xix.  12). 

June  15.  Church  of  England — its  legal  position.  The  Birmingham  (Eng.) 
Post  of  June  15,  1875,  copies  from  the  London  Times  of  June  14,  the  opinion  of 
Fitzjames  Stephen,  “  an  eminent  authority  upon  law,”  given  at  the  desire  of  the 
Bishop  of  London  and  of  Mr.  Fremantle,  whom  the  Bishop  requested  to  abstain 
from  taking  part  in  a  Congregational  service,  and  he  acceded.  They  jointly  put 
these  questions :  (1.)  Is  it  lawful  by  statute  or  otherwise  for  a  clergyman  of  the 
Church  of  England  to  preach  in  a  Non-conformist  place  of  worship,  with  or  without 
a  religious  service?  (2.)  Is  it  an  ecclesiastical  offence  for  a  clergyman  to  officiate  in 
a  service  of  Non-conformists,  or  to  take  part  in  the  Holy  Communion  at  such  service, 
or  to  attend  such  service  at  all?  (3.)  Does  the  illegality,  if  any,  extend  to  chapels 
of  the  Wesleyan  societies  or  of  Lady  Huntingdon’s  connection  ?  (4.)  Does  it  extend 
to  services  in  Ireland  or  Scotland,  whether  in  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland 
or  in  the  Episcopal  churches  of  Scotland,  or  Ireland  not  established,  or  to  the 
churches,  Episcopal  or  Non-Episcopal,  in  the  colonies,  America,  or  the  Continent?  ” 
The  answers  are  too  long  to  quote.  But — 

The  editor  says  :  “  The  essence  of  this  opinion,  given  by  a  high  authority,  is . . . 
You  are  bound,  Mr.  Stephen  says,  to  the  clergy,  while  the  laity  are  free  ;  but  you 
are  bound  only  because  the  Church  is  local  and  its  Episcopal  government,  in  the 
eye  of  the  law,  is  merely  a  local  incident,  and  not  in  any  way  a  divine  institution, 
involving  an  apostolic  succession,  valid  orders,  and  operative  sacraments.  The 
Church  once  governed  herself  [before  the  Reformation]  and  then  these  matters 
were  of  binding  importance  ;  now  she  is  governed  by  ‘  the  King’s  ecclesiastical 
law,’  and  this  law  attaches  no  more  than  local  value  to  the  things  upon  which 
High-Churclimen  set  so  much  store.  Go  out  of  England,  he  continues,  and  unless 
you  profess  utterly  hostile  doctrine,  you  may  worship  and  officiate  where  you 
please — your  own  orders,  or  church  government,  or  modes  of  service,  and  those 
with  whom  you  associate,  go  for  nothing  as  far  as  the  law  is  concerned.  Looked 
at  from  a  purely  Church  point  of  view,  this  statement,  if  it  be  sound  law,  is  calcu¬ 
lated  to  shock  many  opinions  and  to  dissipate  many  illusions  now  held  to  be  of 
binding  doctrinal  force,”  etc.  (xviii.  Dec.  10,  1875  ;  xix.  9.) 

June  19.  Bishops  above  Law  (Clin.)  Under  “  Church  Legislation,”  the  editor 
says  :  “  We  presume  that  there  are  many  in  the  Church  who  would  be  amazed  to 
bel  old  that  there  are  some  things  in  the  office  of  a  Bishop,  on  which  the  Church 
has  no  power  to  legislate,  and  yet,  if  the  office  mean  anything  at  all,  this  is  true 
of  it.”  (xii.  58). 


CnAPTER  XYIII. 


205 


June  24,  1875. 

June  24.  Bishop  above  Law  (So.  Ch.)  Tlie editor  recounts :  “The  clergy  of 
Mt.  Calvary  cliurcli  [Baltimore],  used. .  .  .a  prayer  for  the  dead. . .  .The  Standing 
Committee  complained  to  the  Bishop  [Wliittingliam].  The  Bishop  did  remonstrate 
without  effect  ;  they  used  the  prayer  again. . .  .they  compiled  a  manual  of  ‘prayers 
for  the  dead’. .  .‘compiled. .  .for the  use  of  the  congregation  ’.  .  .placed in  the  book¬ 
stores  for  sale.... The  Standing  Committee  demanded  that  these  clergymen  be 
tried  by  an  ecclesiastical  court,  and  the  Bishop  of  Maryland  absolutely  refuses,  in 
spite  of  the  law,  to  have  them  tried  !  ”  He  then  quotes  remarks  of  Rev.  Mr.  Ran¬ 
dolph  as  to  the  underlying  principle.  But  this  is  denied  by  “  R.  M.  P.”  in  So.  Ch. 
of  July  1,  and  is  therefore  omitted,  (xii.  56-59;  xviii.  April  14). 

July  3.  Oxford  University  (Chn.)  A  “letter  from  England,”  says,  “  of  the 
Bishop  of  Oxford’s  late  remarkable  charges,  in  which  he  openly  attacks  the  too 
prevalent  infidelity  of  the  teachers  in  that  ancient  university.  .  .  .It  is,  in  reality,  a 
monstrous  thing,  that  a  Christian  university  should  encourage  men  as  tutors  and 
professors  who  make  no  secret  of  being  (to  use  tjieir  own  language)  ‘  non-Christian  ’ 

. . .  .The  better  class  of  Oxford  Colleges,  such  as  Keble  and  Corpus,  and  the  new 
Hartford  College,  will  derive  strength  from  the  growing  conviction  that  Balliol,  of 
which  Professor  Jowett  is  head,  and  some  others,  are  tainted. . .  .Hitherto  the  rep¬ 
utation  for  success.  .  .  .lias  enabled  them  to  enlist  all  the  ablest  men,  so  that  they 
keep  up  almost  a  monopoly  of  the  highest  talent.  . .  Cambridge.  . .  .has  produced  a 
better  fruit  than  that  at  Oxford,  though  the  last  comes  so  much  more  before  the 
world,  and  supplies  so  much  larger  an  element  of  the  upper  ranks  of  English  soci¬ 
ety.”  (xii.  12-24). 

July  3.  Toronto  Synod  (Chn.)  Three  columns  are  devoted  to  this  subject. 
Bishop  Lewis  advocates  conciliation  to  prevent  schism.  “  If  the  past  year  has  been 
a  period  of  unusual  and  unseemly  agitation  within  our  ranks,  let  it  not  be  thought 
a  degradation  of  self  to  acknowledge  that  there  may  have  been  undue  heat  and 
unjustifiable  acrimony  on  both  sides.”  (iii.  Jan.  14,  1875). 

July  8.  “Rev.  Dr.  Seymour,  Bishop  of  the  It.  E.  C.v  (So.  Ch.),  quotes  the  Inde- 
pendent,  which  says:  “The  New  York  dailies,  in  mentioning  the  fact  that  Dr. 
George  F.  Seymour  has  just  been  elected  permanent  Dean  of  the  General  Theologi¬ 
cal  Seminary  [on  June  24]  in  New  York,  call  him  ‘Bishop  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church.’  The  higli-church  character  of  this  official  Episcopal  divinity  school  was 
more  apparent  than  ever  at  the  recent  commencement.  Dr.  Seymour  got  77  votes 
out  of  93  on  the  first  ballots  of  the  Trustees. . .  .The  first  lesson  was  read  by  Dr. 
Nictiolas  Hoppin,  of  the  Confraternity  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  who  had  to  leave 
his  church  in  Cambridge  in  consequence  of  his  ritualistic  experiments  ;...  .the 
pray ers . . .  .  by  Rev.  Francis  Harrison,  of  Troy,  Ritualist  and  contributor  to  the 
defunct  Church  and  the  World ;  and  the  Litany. . .  .by  Canon  Knowles,  of  the  late 
Bishop  Whiteliouse’s  cathedral  in  Chicago.”  (xii.  56-59). 

July  8.  P.  E.  C.  a  u  most  respectable  society.”  (  The  Southern  Churchman) 
in  trying  to  correct  the  faults  of  its  own  Church,  says  :  “Wo  think  the  Episcopal 
Church,  venerable  in  age,  mellow  with  wisdom,  reverential  with  truth,  is  a  most 
respectable  society.  We  should  feel  like  doing  battle  with  any  one  who  would 
deny  these  attributes  as  belonging  to  this  institute.  But  there  was  a  time,  it  has 
not  been  many  years  since,  when  we  were  too  respectable.  We  were  admiring  our¬ 
selves  for  this  trait ;  indeed,  we  were  in  danger,  like  the  Spanish  king,  of  dying  of 
our  respectability.  We  are  glad  to  think  our  danger  has  lessened.”  (xix.  12). 


206 


C II  AFTER  XVIII. 


September  1,  1875. 

Sept.  1.  No  reordination  of  a  Romish  Priest  (Epis.  Rec.)  The  Church  Jour¬ 
nal  of  August  5,  cqpies  the  details  from  the  Chicago  Times,  describing  the  reception  of 
the  Romish  Priest,  Rev.  Ephraim  Therien,  at  Kankakee,  Ill.,  without  reordination. 
Then  the  remarks  of  the  Church  Journal.  It  “was  not  an  ordination,  it  was 
simply  a  reception.  . .  .He  who  ordained  Mr.  Therien  was  a  Bishop  and  had  authority. 
To  repeat  this  ordination  would  be  sacrilege,  for  it  would  be  treating  a  holy  thing 
with  contempt.  . .  .Had  Mr.  Therien  come  from  the  Presbyterians,  Baptists,  Metho¬ 
dists,  or  any  one  of  the  Protestant  denominations,  his  ordination  would  have  been 
simply  ignored.’’  (iii.  Dec.  4,  1873). 

Sept.  4.  Bishop  Cox  on  the  Rejection  of  Seymour.  (Chn.)  In  a  letter  of 
six  columns.  Bishop  Cox  says  :  “We  are  not  always  to  keep  silence. . .  .lest  we  give 
free  course  to  falsehoods.”  He  quotes  from  a  Chicago  paper,  respecting  Seymour 
and  De  Koven,  ‘the  two  are  said  to  stand  together  on  doctrinal  questions.’. . . My 
share  in  all  this  business  has  been  the  product. . .  .of  thorough  information  as  to 
facts.”  . .  .Our  General  Seminary. , .  .is  in  no  respect  a  representative  council  of  the 
Church. . .  .The  local  trustees  and  their  near  neighbors  are  the  only  members. . . . 
always  present .  .a  few  distant  members  summoned  for  the  purpose  can  generally 
turn  the  vote. ..  .Formerly  there  was  a  triennial  meeting. ..  .But  this  has  been 
abolished  ;...  .a  fluctuating-  minority ...  .is  virtually  clothed  with  irresponsible 
power. ..  .The  Illinois  case  was  decided  in  the  House  of  Deputies  by  a  most  sig¬ 
nificant  and  emphatic  vote.  It  has  been  again  decided  by  action  still  more  de¬ 
liberate  and  emphatic. . .  .To  vote  No  is  to  make  enemies,  and  to  provoke  the  spite 
of  the  worst  characters  in  the  Church. . .  .The  petty  terrorism  of  such  men  is  a  real 
power.  . .  .In  the  Illinois  case  this  class  of  men  was  known  to  be  enlisted  in  behalf 
of  the  candidate. ..  .active  night  and  dav....The  motives  which  were  addressed 
. . .  .were,  in  some  cases,  such  as  might  be  paralleled  only  by  the  tactics  of  political 
demagogues.  I  speak  of  what  I  know. . .  .1  consider  the  vote  of  the  House,  solemn 
and  significant  even  to  sublimity ...  .Good  men  voted  for  him  because  they  were 
led  to  believe  he  was  no  ‘  Ritualist.’  They  believed  he  had  no  sympathy  with  the 
outspoken  President  of  Racine.  Who  believes  it  now  ?  ‘  The  two  are  said  to  stand 

together  on  doctrinal  questions,’ and  that  such  is  the  case  nobody  will  deny.... 
Who  stood  up  and  took  the  fair  ground,  ‘  Our  candidate  is  as  much  a  ritualist  as 
his  friend  for  whose  express  benefit  you  are  called  upon  to  enact  a  Ritual  Canon, 
but  we  mean  to  sustain  Ritualism?  ’. . .  .This  is  said  now  defiantly  enough. . .  .It 
was  a  hard  thing  to  believe  that  there  was  any  concealment,  equivocation,  or  du¬ 
plicity  in  the  solemn  denials  of  a  candidate  expecting  immediate  consecration  and 
tendering  a  candid  statement  of  facts,  to  a  Council  of  the  Church,  about  to  vote  for 
or  against  him,  under  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost. . .  .1  shall  prove  them  from 
the  publications  of  the  defeated  candidate  himself,  that  he  has  contradicted  his  own 
solemn  statements  and  refuted  his  own  stories  ;  has  failed  in  making  any  one  de¬ 
tailed  statement  to  which  he  adheres,  and  has  corroborated  by  the  statements  of 
others  almost  everything  which  he  gave  the  House  of  Deputies  to  suppose  untrue 
. . .  .For  his  self-stultifying  oaths  and  affirmations,  I  would  not  hold  him  entirely 
responsible.”  (xix.  13  ;  xii.  59). 

Sept.  11.  Bishop  Cox  continues  September  4,  (Chn).  As  to  the  House  of 
Deputies  in  rejecting  Dr.  Seymour :  “  I  can  account  for  their  decision  in  no  other 
way  than  this:  They  said,  ‘  There  is  proof  of  much  that  requires  explanation,  and 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


207 


September  11,  1875. 

the  explanations  proffered  are  ambiguous  and  unsatisfactory ;  we  cannot  confirm 
the  election  of  a  presbyter,  who,  at  such  a  crisis,  fails  to  tell  us  all  he  knows  about 
serious  occurrences  and  abuses,  and  who  leaves  us  under  the  profound  impression 
that  he  equivocates  and  suppresses  the  truth.’  ”  He  then,  in  his  letter  of  seven 
columns,  uses  these  expressions:  “The  two  stories  are  flat  contradictions  ;  if  this 
affidavit  tells  the  truth,  it  is  impossible  that  his  statement  to  the  House  was  a  faith¬ 
ful  account  of  facts. ..  .Observe,  then,  the  issue  is  about  words.  All  that  he  and 
others  may  swear  about  his  doings  may  be  true,  but  that  is  not  the  point. . .  .In  the 
‘  issue  of  veracity,’  which  he  so  gratuitously  made,  all  turns  on  what  he  said.  .  .  .Let 
us  take  the  Professor’s  sworn  statement.  . .  .He  knew  that  ‘  Father  Grafton’s  ’  lecture 
wras  a  fact. . .  .He  admitted  that  he  had  lectured  on  more  than  one  occasion. . .  .Did 

• 

he  make  these  same  admissions  to  the  House  of  Deputies  ?  On  the  contrary,  he  flatly 
denied  that  anything  of  the  kind  had  occurred.  ..  .The  House  of  Deputies,  how¬ 
ever,  was  not  merely  trifled  with  by  these  detailed  statements  of  facts  ;  it  was  yet 
further  mystified  by  equivocations. . .  .To  suspect  an  equivocation  seemed  unchar¬ 
itable;  and  it  is  only  by  the  great  mercy  of  God  that  he  escaped  being  consecrated 
a  few  days  later,  with  words  in  his  mouth  which  he  now  swears  were  not  strictly 
true.... I  have  no  disposition  to  press  these  appalling  facts. ..  .That  such  being 
some  of  the  essential  facts  of  the  case,  nothing  of  the  sort  was  communicated  to 
the  House. . . . I  throw  aside,  then,  a  painful  comparison  which  I  have  made  of  oath 
with  oath,  and  page  with  page,  of  this  ‘  sworn  evidence.’  I  do  not  wish  to  make 
indelible  the  stain  with  which  so  many  young  clergymen  have  defiled  their  hands, 
nor  to  point  out  how  little  they  seem  to  understand  the  peril  of  that  ‘  vain  and 
rash  swearing.’. . .  .Yet  here  is  a  pamphlet  filled  with  ‘  sworn  evidence  ’  the  most 
contradictory  and  self-refuting,  and  the  person  who  is  responsible  for  it  is  the  per¬ 
son  selected  by  seventy-seven  trustees  out  of  400,  to  form  the  manners  and  mold 
the  characters  of  our  future  clergy,  as  permanent  Dean  of  our  General  Theological 
Seminary.”  (xix.  13;  xviii.  Nov.  6,  1875.  General). 

On  this  point  in  the  same  number,  E.  M.  Peeke  gives  the  trustees  present  on 
twenty  occasions,  from  1866  to  1875,  and  says  :  “  From  all  this  it  is  evident  that  the 

seventy-seven  votes  which  were  cast  for  the  present  Dean _ would  have  been  a 

majority  in  any  ballot. . .  .for  ten  years.”  (xii.  58.) 

Sept.  22.  Sale  of  Church  and  State  to  Churchman  (Epis.  Rec.)  by  “  N.” 
(xix.  12;  xviii.  June  9,  1875.) 

Sept.  23.  Pulverization  (So.  Ch.)  Bishop  Clark  in  his  convention  address 
says :  “  The  formation  of  new  dioceses,  the  division  of  several  of  the  older  dioceses 
and  the  consequent  increase  of  the  number  of  Bishops,  were  among  the  most 
important  questions  brought  before  the  convention.”  (Continued,  xix.  13-12.) 

Oct.  2.  Infidels  and  Gamblers  (Chn.)  At  the  Illinois  Diocesan  Convention, 
Sept.  16,  when  discussing  the  resolutions  which  condemned  the  rejection  of  Dr. 
DeKoven  as  Bishop,  by  the  Standing  Committees  :  “  Mr.  Judd  said  that  no  other 
church  upon  earth  permitted  such  a  thing  as  that  the  laity — infidels  some  of  them 
— should  pass  upon  the  doctrinal  qualifications  of  Bisliops-elect ;  and  Dr.  Cushman 
expressed  his  abhorrence  of  the  system  which  left  the  Standing  Committees  to  sit 
in  judgment  on  the  theology  of  a  Bishop-elect,  while  it  was  possible  for  infidels  or 
gamblers  to  be  lay  members  of  the  Standing  Committees.”  [This  cannot  be  so  in 
the  R.  E.  C.,  xix.  3.] 


208 


CHAPTER  XYin. 


November  6,  1875. 

Nov.  6.  Domestic  Missions  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (Clin.)  (xix.  13-11.) 

Nov.  6.  Board  of  Missions  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (Clin.)  “  Indian  Commission. . .  - 
was  burdened  with  a  debt  of  $10,000.  The  receipts  for  the  year. . .  .$50,101.21.  . . . 
The  Foreign  Committee  reported  that  their  receipts  for  the  year  were  only  $89,- 
724.74,  being  $10,275.64  less  than  in  1874,  and  $24,385.34  less  than  in  1873.”. . .  . 
The  committee  on  the  subject  of  offerings  for  missions  “  stated  that  in  their 
judgment  the  need  of  a  more  thorough  enlistment  of  the  people  in  the  great  mis¬ 
sionary  work  was  becoming  more  apparent  every  year.”  The  Foreign  Committee 
“  being  also  in  debt  to  the  extent  of  more  than  $30,000.”  With  respect  to  a 
resolution  “  referring  to  Bishop  Gobat  and  the  Armenian  Christians.”  “  In 
opposition  to  this  the  Bishop  of  Albany  spoke  very  warmly,  condemning  what  he 
styled  the  impertinent  ignorance  often  exhibited  in  connection  with  this. ..  .sub¬ 
ject.  . .  .He  said  that  the  name  of  the  Armenian  prelate  of  whom  Bishop  Gobat 
wrote,  was  one  unfavorably  known  in  England ;  that  the  movement  of  this 
individual  corresponded  to  the  Cummins  movements  in  relation  to  our  own  Church* 
while  Bishop  Gobat’s  action  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  principles  upon  which 
the  Jerusalem  Episcopate  was  founded,”  etc.  Dr.  Schereschewsky,  “  Digressing  for 
a  moment,  he  said  that  the  Assembly  might  be  interested  to  know  what  had 
particularly  impressed  him  as  he  had  listened  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Board.  He 
replied  that  it  was  the  prevailing  self-gratulation,"  etc.  “  The  Bishop  of  Ohio. . . . 
wished  to  make  a  statement  with  reference  to  the  remarks  of. . .  .Bishop  Doane, 
who.... had  reflected  upon  Bishop  Gobat.  Either  that  speaker  possessed  less 
knowledge  of  the  subject  than  himself,  or  much  better  information.”. . . The  rest 
of  the  business  was  also  run  through  with  hot  haste.”  (xix.  13-7,  8.) 

Nov.  6.  House  of  Bishops  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (Clm.)  The  presiding  bishop  in 
his  public  address,  said:  “We  are  blessed,  too,  in  a  wonderful  way,  in  aiding 
through  various  instrumentalities  in  bringing  about  a  restoration  of  harmony 
amongst  the  long-divided  sections  of  the  one  Church.”  (xix.  13  ;  xii.  56-59.) 

Nov.  6.  Bishop  of  Maine  (Clin.)  (xix.  13.) 

Nov.  6.  General  Theological  Seminary  (Chn.)  “  The  degrees  to  be  conferred 
are  three,  namely,  S.  T.  B.,  S.  T.  M.,  and  S.  T.  D.,  or  Bachelor,  Master,  and  Doctor  of 
Sacred  Theology  ;  and  the  holders  will  be  entitled  to  wear  hoods  corresponding  to 
their  respective  degrees.”  (xviii.  Sept.  4,  11,  1875,  Bp.  Cox  ;  Feb.  26,  1876.) 

Nov.  6.  Society  for  the  increase  of  the  Ministry  (Chn.)  (xix.  13-10.) 

Nov.  11.  Rev.  N.  H.  Schenck  (Times),  (xix.  13-6.)  This  last  remark 
“  fool  ”  is  also  found  in  the  Southern  Churchman,  but  not  in  the  Hartford  Church¬ 
man. 

Nov.  20.  The  Churchman.  Editor  on  Church  union,  (xix.  13.) 

Nov.  20.  Church  Congress  (Chn.)  Editor  says  :  “  What  our  Church  in  Phil¬ 
adelphia  has  just  witnessed  would  have  been  impossible,  not  only  in  the  days  of 
Bishop  White  or  Bishop  Alonzo  Potter,  but  probably  in  any  year  before  this  of  the 
administration  of  the  present  highly  esteemed  head  of  the  diocese. . .  .The  old  con¬ 
vention  leaders  in  either  house  were  not  conspicuously  present. . .  .There  Avas  a 
clear  purpose  all  around  to  let  every  mouth  have  its  say  to  the  utmost. . .  Contra¬ 
diction,  idiosyncracy,  extremes  of  one  sort  or  another,  always  short  of  heresy  and 
schism,  were  encouraged  to  ‘speak  out.’”  (III.  Nov.  11,  1874.  Cli.  Jo.) 

Nov.  29.  Cardinal  McCloskey  (Trib.)  in  his  address,  said:  “From  the  fact 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


209 


November  29,  1875. 

that  Christ  promised  that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  His  Church, 
it  is  to  he  inferred  that  they  would  strive  to  prevail.  The  Cardinal  predicted  the 
final  triumph  of  the  Church.”  (xix.  13.) 

Dec.  10?  English,  exclusiveness.  (Times?)  under  the  head  “  British  Affairs,” 
says  that  the  vicar  wrote  to  Mr.  Smith  that  it  was  4  altogether  contrary  to  the  doc¬ 
trine  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,  that  either  her  clergy  or  faithful 
laity  should  attend  service  in  a  Dissenting  chapel.’  Mr.  Smith  appealed  to  the 
Bishop  of  ■Winch ester,  Dr.  Harold  Browne,  who  attended  the  Old  Catholic  Congress 
at  Cologne  in  1872,  and  the  Bishop  says :  44  It  appears  to  him  that  ‘  no  well 
instructed  churchman  can  attend  the  service  of  other  communions.’  ITis  reason  is 
that  if  the  English  Church  is  not  the  true  Church  of  this  land,  she  is  a  usurper  and 
an  impostor.”  (xviii.  June  15,  1875;  xix.  13.) 

Dec.  11.  Free  Preaching  and  the  Parish  system  (Chn.)  (xix.  11.) 

Dec.  30.  Episcopalians  in  Georgia  (Obs.)  copied  from  “  exchange  ”  “When 
Oglethorpe  was  Governor  of  the  Province  of  Georgia,  over  130  years  ago,  there 
were  no  Methodists,  but  1,000  members  of  the  Church  of  England.  Now  there  are 
150,000  Methodists  and  not  quite  5,000  Episcopalians.  The  Baptists  about  equal 
the  Methodists.  These  two  are  the  leading  denominations  in  the  State.”  (xix. 
13-1. 


1876. 

Jan.  1.  Candidates  for  orders  in  the  P.  E.  C.  (Chn.)  (xix.  13-13.) 

Jan.  1.  Wisconsin  Convention  (Appeal).  The  Milwaukee  Sentinel  of  June 
23,  1870,  says  that  the  following  canon  was  proposed,  but  not  accepted  :  44  Every 
communicant  of  the  Church,  marrying  outside  of  our  communion,  or  married  by 
any  other  than  a  clergyman  of  the  Church,  shall  stand  ipso  facto  excommunicated.” 
(xii.  58.) 

Jan.-l.  American  Patriots  Low-Cliurch  (Appeal).  Washington  did  as  readily 
worship  and  partake  of  the  communion  in  a  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  Cong-rega- 
tional,  or  any  other  church,  as  in  an  Episcopal  Church  . .  .Patrick  Henry,  when  he 
heard  that  some  Baptist  ministers  had  been  indicted,  rode  thirty  miles  of  his  own 
accord,  unretained,  to  defend  them. . .  .while  waving  over  his  head  the  indictment, 
electrified  the  audience  and  startled  the  judge  as  he  exclaimed  :  44  What !  Indicted 
for  preaching  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ !  Is  that  a  crime  ?  ”  (III.  Dec.  4,  1873  ; 
xii.  25-28,  56-59.) 

Jan.  1.  Royal  Family  of  England  (Appeal)  is  said  to  be  a  little  mixed  in  its 
religion.  Queen  Victoria  dislikes  Ritualists,  and  delights  in  a  simple  form  of  wor¬ 
ship.  The  Prince  of  Wales,  on  the  contrary,  enjoys  the  forms  of  the  Church  when¬ 
ever  he  attends,  which  is  but  seldom.  His  eldest  sister  is  a  Lutheran.  Lord  Lome 
is  a  Presbyterian.  The  Duchess  of  Edinburg  is  Greek  Catholic  and  her  husband  a 
Low-Church  Episcopalian,  (xix.  9.) 

Jan.  1.  No  hope  of  change  (Appeal).  Bishop  Johns  quotes  Rev.  J.  A.  Latane’s 
letter  (III.  Jan.  12,  1874) :  44  1  am  satisfied  that  this  doctrine  (that  baptism  invariably 
effects  regeneration)  was  not  held  by  the  framers  of  the  Prayer-Book,  nor  intended  to 
be  expressed  ” . .  he  comments :  44 1  think  them  literally  true.’’  On  the  contrary,  Bishop 
McLaren  says  :  44  To  day  the  Church  asserts  it  as  one  of  the  most  precious  jewels  in 
her  deposit  of  doctrine.”  Bishop  Johns  quotes  the  Preface  to  the  Prayer-Book,  as 


210 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


January  1,  1876. 

to  the  propriety  of  making  changes,  and  says:  “Wise  and  ample  provision  is  thus 
made  to  remedy  just  such  evils  as  those  of  which  you  complain  ”...  .On  the  con¬ 
trary,  Bishop  Potter  in  dictatorial  tones  says  it  is  “  an  absolute  impossibility,”  and 
Bishop  McLaren  said:  “The  invincible  conservatism  of  the  House. ..  .overthrew 
the  hopes  of  the  adherents  of  an  effete  theology  so  completely  that  it  is  not  likely 
we  shall  hear  again  of  the  subject.”  In  1871  the  effort  was  made  by  nine  Bishops 
to  have  alternate  phrases  in  the  Baptism  of  Infants.  It  was  refused.  In  1874  it 
was  renewed  by  strong  petitions  and  again  refused.  (III.  Oct.  24,  29,  29,  29,  31, 
81,  1874;  xii.  50-59  ;  xix.  12.) 

Jan.  1.  Rev.  Dr.  S.  H.  Tyng,  Jr.  (Appeal.)  The  letter  (II.  Sept.  1G. 1875) is 

a  forgery.  “  The  letter  was. . .  .reproduced. . .  .in  the  E '<  E.  journals - Of  (he 

journals  of  the  P.  E.  C.  only  one  is  known  to  have  corrected  the  error.”  (xi.  39,  42.) 

Jan.  1.  Church  of  England  (Appeal).  “  To  repudiate  the  trammels  of  State 
connection,  and  to  come  out  on  the;  basis  of  a  revised  Prayer-Book,  would  be  to 
hand  over  to  the  High-Churcli  party  a  thousand  parish  churches,  the  care  of  a 
million  souls,  the  possession  of  immense  church  property,  and  all  the  influences  in¬ 
separably  connected  with  the  position  of  a  State  Church.”  (xvii.  May  5  ;  1875,  Dr. 
Newton  ;  xii.  12-24.) 

Jan.  5.  Mass  in  masquerade  in  New  York  described.  (Epis.  Rec.)  (xix.  14.) 

Jan.  15.  Mexico  (Clin.)  Full  legal  title  is  “  The  Mexican  branch  of  the 
Catholic  Church  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  militant  upon  earth.”  The  popular 
abridgment,  “  Church  of  Jesus  in  Mexico,”  is  permitted  to  be  used.  The  P.  E.  C. 
is  recognized  as  the  older  sister.  Seven  bishops  of  the  P.  E.  C.  commissioned  to 
superintend  ;  viz.,  of  Maryland,  Delaware,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  West  New  York, 
Pittsburg,  Long  Island.  [They  have  revised  the  Prayer-Book.  (xvii.  Jan.  19, 1876.)] 
(xix.  19.) 

Jan.  19.  Revision  o  the  Prayer-Book  of  P.  E.  C.  (Epis.  Rec)  I.  C.,  in  the 

Southern  Churchman  of  last  week,  says  :  “  A  reflection  arising  out  of  the  controversy 

about  the  words  priest,  altar,  etc.,  is  the  danger  of  being  obliged  to  defend  what  is 

not  very  defensible.  We  find,  for  instance,  the  words  priest,  altar,  regenerate, 

descent  into  hell,  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,  etc.  We  would  rather  not  have  these 

* 

words  in  the  Prayer-Book  ;  but  they  are  there,  and  if  they  are  capable  of  defense, 
there  is  a  very  proper  spirit  to  defend  them.  Love  for  the  Church  and  for  the 

Prayer-Book  naturally  leads  us  to  justify  things  just  as  they  stand _ These  errors 

of  priesthood,  sacrifice,  etc.,  become  authorized  by  the  authoritative  sanction  of  the 
fit  words  that  express  them.  The  words  priest,  altar,  etc.,  convey  certain  ideas, 
mean  certain  things,  invariably  and  universally. . .  .That  which  has  been  justified 
as  it  stands,  is  taken  by  loyal  and  simple  hearts  to  teach  all  that  it  means,  and  by 
the  subtle  and  dishonest,  to  teach  all  that  it  may  be  made  to  mean. . .  .Words  are 
teaching,  teaching,  teaching,  all  the  time ...  ,1s  it  wise  then  in  the  Episcopal  Church 
to  compel  her  members  to  be  ever  justifying. . .  .words  which  are  felt  to  be  a  bur- 

%  den. . .  .bring  her  into  disrepute _ not  only  are  not  Christian  words,  but  which 

seem  to  have  been  repudiated  and  condemned  by  the  spirit  of  inspiration  ?  Words 
w'hicli,  finally,  are  educating  the  mind  of  the  Church  into  ideas  which  are  Judaic 
and  not  Christian,  Romish  and  not  Protestant. ..  .capable. ..  .of  a  very  plausible 
defence.  But  the  more  ably  they  are  defended,  the  worse  it  is  for  the  Church  and 
the  Truth.”  (xvii.  Jan.  1, 187G,  Moncton  ;  ix.  2  ;  xix.  2.) 


CHAPTER  XVIII.' 


211 


January  22,  1876. 

Jan.  22.  Key-West,  Florida.  (Clin.)  “  A  Sunday-school  was  commenced  in  St. 
Peter’s  on  the  2d  of  January.  The  service  in  the  new  parish  will  be  full  choral.” 
(xix.  14.) 

Jan.  22.  Bishop  of  Michigan  (Clin.)  in  his  address,  ad  clerum,  said  :  “  (1)  That 
never  in  the  history  of  the  American  Church,  were  the  rules  of  the  Church  in  more 
perfect  accord  in  all  matters  of  faith,  doctrine,  and  discipline.  (2)  Never  before  had 
she  been  so  thoroughly  equipped  for  the  Master’s  work,  in  the  number  of  the  Epis¬ 
copate,  as  now.  Yet  there  was  not  that  proportionate  growth  of  the  Church  that 
should  reasonably  be  expected.  He  then  assigned  as  the  causes  for  this  lack  of 
growth,  (1)  the  materialism  of  the  age,  (2)  intense  worldliness  of  the  age  {a)  outside 
of  the  Church,  (b)  in  some  measure  within.  The  world  is  invading  the  Church,  in¬ 
stead  of  the  Church  conquering  the  world.  Hence  the  common  resort  to  worldly 
ways  in  the  maintenance  of  worship  ;  (3)  the  unwarrantable  suspicions  against  her 
accredited  teachers  and  rulers ;  which  manifests  its  presence  by  meddlesome  per¬ 
sons  criticising  the  doctrine  and  practices  of  the  authorized  teachers  ;  making  ail 
outcry  against  ‘  ritualism  ’  where  no  unwarranted  ritualism  exists  ;  decrying  the 
manner  of  ‘  standi'  g  or  kneeling,’  as  if  therein  was  to  be  found  error  in  doctrine  ; 
weakening  the  power,  influence,  and  authority  of  rectors  and  missionaries,  by 
criticisms  often  slyly  hid  behind  a  wink,  a  look,  an  ominous  silence,  and  the  like  ; 
invading  the  parishes  and  fields  of  others,  and  prying  into  practices  of  those  who 
were  amenable  only  to  their  bishop,”  etc.  (xix.  11  ;  13  ;  14.) 

Jan.  22.  Bishop  Gillespie,  of  W.  Michigan  (Chn.)  “  I  believe  that  every  Bishop 
in  the  land  will  bless  God  for  a  tenfold  multiplication  of  the  young  unmarried  men 
who,  assured  of  good  raiment  and  shelter,  would  be  therewith  content.”  (xix.  13  ;  1 
to  14.) 

Jan.  22.  Reception  of  a  Roman  Catholic  Priest  (Chn.)  without  re-or¬ 
dination,  at  St.  James’,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  on  Jan.  9.  (III.  Dec.  4,  1873.) 

Jan.  22.  Statistics  of  P.  E.  C.  (Chn.)  Church  Almanac  for  1876  gives  con¬ 
tributions  (in  thirty-nine  dioceses  and  seven  mission  districts),  $6,851,983.27  in 
1874,  and  $6,690,575.48  in  1875.  (xix.  12.) 

Jan.  22.  EastoJ  Day  (Chn.)  (xix.  16.) 

Jan.  26.  Bishop  Doane’s  Convention  Address,  (xix.  11-4.) 

Jan.  29.  Easter  Day  (Chn.)  (xix.  16.) 

Jan.  29.  Foreign  Committee  of  Board  of  Missions  (Chn.)  Special  com¬ 
mittee.  (xix.  13-14.) 

Jan.  29.  Canada  (Chn.)  Letter  from  Montreal  says  :  “  The  Mission  Board  of 
Ontario  will  require  $10,000  this  year  to  meet  its  engagements.  So  far  as  we  have 
heard,  there  is  a  falling  off  in  the  usual  amounts. ..  .The  Bishop  of  Ontario 
delivered  an  address  in. . .  .Ottawa,  in  favor  of  choral  services.  These  services  are 
by  no  means  popular  in  Ottawa. . .  .We  are  so  divided,  and  so  bitter  in  our  divisions, 
that  we  cannot  unite  in  anything. ..  .Parties  are  becoming  so  narrowed  and 
defined,  that  unless  one  can  pronounce  the  Shibboleth  of  one  or  the  other,  he  is 
avoided  by  both  as  a  suspicious  character.  And  it  is  the  clergy  who  have  to 
answer  for  this  state  of  things. . .  .The  Huron  Recorder,  in  its  last  issue,  intimates 
that  unless  it  receives  a  more  liberal  support,  it  will  not  be  continued  after  April 
next.”  (xix.  13-1  to  15.) 

Jan.  29.  Canada  (Chn.)  Quebec  choral  service,  the  Bishop  preached.  Hali¬ 
fax  choral  service,  the  Bishop  made  “an  able  defence  of  choral  services.”  (xix.  14.) 


212 


CHAPTER  XYITI. 


January  29,  1876. 

Jan  29.  Norwich,  Conn.  (Clin.)  At  the  Convocation,  “They  were  introduced 

by  the  Archdeacon” 

Jan.  29.  Cincinnati  "Mission  (Clin.)  “  Addresses. . .  .by  the  Lord  Bishop  of 
Huron,  the  Dean  of  Huron,  and  the  Bishop  of  Southern  Ohio.  The  Prayer-Book, 
the  surplice,  and  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  Church  were  held  to  most  vigor¬ 
ously.  Indeed,  it  was  announced  at  the  beginning,  that  there  might  be  no  mistake 
as  to  the  character  of  the  services,  that  the  mission  was  conducted  by  High-Church¬ 
men.”  (xix.  14.) 

Jan.  29.  Sister  Cathlyne  (Chn.)  was  received  into  the  Sisterhood  of  the 
Holv  Child  Jesus,  in  All-Saints  Cathedral.  Alban v,  on  Holv  Innocents’  Dav.  The 
ceremony  was  performed  by  the  Bishop,  (xix.  14.) 

Feb.  5.  Bishop  of  Winchester  (Chn.)  maintains  the  usual  High-Church 
grounds — “  Saar  iter  in  modo,  fortiter  in  re.”  (xix.  14.) 

Feb.  5.  Bishop  of  Colorado  (Chu.)  says,  “Such  people,  though  they  may 
prefer  the  Church  to  other  religious  bodies.”  (xix.  13.) 

Feb.  5.  Trinity  Church,  New  York.  (Chn.)  During  the  Easter  season  Mr. 
Jerome  Hopkins’  Orchestral  Vesper  Service  for  Eastertide  will  be  performed  for  the 
first  time  in  Trinity  Chapel,  Xew  York  City.  The  different  organists  of  Trinity  parish 
will  assist  at  the  performance,  and  the  service  will  be  rendered  by  an  orchestra, 
boy  choir,  two  choruses,  four  solo  voices,  and  other  musical  accompaniments.” 
[An  ecclesiologicai  opera,  called  “  Service.’’]  (xix.  14.) 

Feb.  5.  “Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  England, ’’  (Ottawa  Times.) 
(xix.  9.) 

Feb.  26.  Bishop  Doane  (Chn.)  “The  Church’s  way  the  best  way.’’  (xix. 
11-4.) 

Feb.  26.  British  Columbia  (Chn.)  Diocesan  Synod  of  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land,  recently  established,  lasted  four  days.  Dean  Gilson  seconded  the  motion  to 
form  the  Svnod.  Archdeacon  Wood  moved  an  amendment  to  exclude  lavmen. 
Lieutenant-Governor  Turch  suggested  that  the  laity  had  perhaps  held  the  soundest 
doctrine,  and  that  it  was  the  Bishop  and  clergy  who  were  in  fault.  Amendment 
rejected  and  Synod  formed  with  but  one  dissentient,  (xi.  26,  Rev.  E.  Cridge.) 

Feb.  26.  Illinois  (Chn.)  At  a  special  ordination  at  the  Cathedral  in  Chicago, 
on  February  13,  “Bishop  McLaren  sang  the  Litany  and  the!  Veni  Creator  Spiritus.”) 
(xix.  14 ) 

Feb.  26.  Colorado  (Chn.)  The  Bishop  writes  :  “  Four  of  the  clergy  of  two  years 
ago  have  left  the  Church,  of  whom  three  have  been  deposed  and  the  other  will  be.” 
xix.  14.) 

Feb.  26.  Blackwell's  Island  (Chn )  “  It  may  not  be  generally  known  that 
our  Church  is  the  onlv  Protestant  bodv  which  sustains  regular  services  at  Black- 
well's  Island.”  [f“Rev.  R.  H.  Bourne,  Charity  Hospital,  Blackwell’s  Island,  X.  Y.,” 
is  the  address  of  a  minister  of  the  R.  E.  C.]  (xi.  26  ) 

Feb.  26.  Hoods  (Chn.)  Rev.  John  H.  Drumm  quotes  the  58th  Canon  of  the 
Church  of  England  :  “  Every  minister.  . .  .shall  wear  a. . .  .surplice  with  sleeves 
. . .  .graduates  shall  wear  upon  their  surplices  at  such  times,  such  hoods  as  by  the 
orders  of  the  Universities  are  agreeable  to  their  degrees,  which  no  minister  shall 
wear  (being  no  graduate)  under  pain  of  suspension.”  (xviii.  Xov.  6,  1875.) 

March  1.  Homeward  (Appeal).  Last  Sunday,  says  Our  Church  Work, 


ClfAPTEB  XYIIT. 


213 


March  1,  1870. 

Bishop  Whittingham  deposed  Rev.  A.  B.  Leeson,  deacon,  lately  an  assistant  of  Mt. 
Calvary  Ch.,  Baltimore,  who  has  announced  hi3  intention  to  connect  himself  with 
the  Church  of  Rome.  (xix.  14.) 

March  1.  Layman  or  Cleric  (Appeal).  W.  H.  C.,  referring  to  the  deposition 
of  Rev.  G.  A.  Redles  by  Bishop  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania,  who  calls  him  “  Mr.  G. 
Albert  Redles."  continues  :  “  Who  authorized  Bishop. . .  .Stevensto  say  that  ceasing 
to  be  a  minister  of  the  numerically  insignificant  P.  E.  C.  he  ceases  to  be  a  minister 
of  the  one  Holy  Catholic  or  Universal  Church  of  Christ?  Is  the  communion  of 
Bishop  Stevens  co-extensive  with  that  Church ?  Let  him  wait  until  it  shall  be 
recognized  as  such  by  the  great,  though  corrupt,  Romish  and  Greek  communions, 
before  he  shall  presume  to  venture  on  such  an  assumption.”  (xix  13.) 

March.  22.  Sister  Harriet  (Epis.  Rec.)  was  buried  in  Baltimore  with  semi- 
Bomish  ceremonies,  (xix.  14. ) 

April  15.  Increase  of  the  Ministry  (Post),  (xix.  13-15.) 

June  10.  “Newark’s  Episcopal  Sisterhood.’’  (iT.  7.  Herald)  says:  “The 
Newark  Episcopalians  have  a  sisterhood  in  charge  of  their  hospital  of  St.  Bar¬ 
nabas.  somewhat  similar  to  sisterhoods  having  charge  of  Catholic  hospitals.  Yes¬ 
terday  a  novel  and  interesting  ceremony  was  witnessed  in  St.  Paul’s  Episcopal 
church.  This  was  the  formal  admission  of  Sister  Sylvia  into  the  Protestant  sis¬ 
terhood.  the  ceremony  being  performed  by  Bishop  Odenheimer,  aided  by  Rectors 
Smith  and  Stansbury.  The  service  was  opened  with  a  processional  hymn,  during 
the  singing  of  which  Bishop  Odenheimer  and  a  number  of  clergy,  followed  by  the 
Sister  and  postulant,  the  latter  with  a  white  veil,  entered  the  church  and  proceeded 
to  the  chancel,  the  Sisters  taking  seats  in  the  body  of  the  church. 

“  Rector  Smith  then  briefly  addressed  the  congregation.  Among  the  evidences 
of  the  revival  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  vouchsafed  the  Anglican  communion,  he 
said,  there  is  no  more  evident  token  than  this  revival  of  sisterhoods,  and  the  time 
has  now  come  in  our  own  diocese  when  such  a  community  is  to  be  established,  and 
when  there  may  be  witnessed  the  establishment  of  the  new  sisterhood  and  the 
reception  of  a  Sister. 

“  Sister  Sylvia,  of  St.  Luke’s  Hospital,  New  York,  came  forward  and  was  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  Bishop.  She  knelt  and  Bishop  Odenheimer  blessed  a  cross  which  he 
handel  to  her,  and  after  a  few  collects  she  took  upon  herself  the  vows  of  the  Order 
and  was  admitted  a  member  of  the  sisterhood  by  the  Bishop,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  (xix  14 ;  iii.  Sept.  10;  Oct.  19,  1874. ) 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 


Contents: — (1).  Let  Well  Enough  Alone. — (2).  Principles  of  the  R.  E. 
C. — (3).  Protection  of  the  Laity  in  the  R.  E.  C. — :(4).  Disposition  to  Try 
New  Experiments. — (5).  Special  Services  Proposed. — (6).  To  Stand  as  in 
Pronouncing  the  Absolution. — (7).  To  Abolish  Synods. — (8).  R.  E.  G.  and 
Extraneous  Organizations. — (9).  “  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land .” — (10 f  Carey  Ordination ,  July  2,  1843. — (11).  Free  Preaching  and 
the  Parish  System  ;  a.  Bp.  Huntingdon;  b.  Bp.  Doane. — (12).  Imitating , 
but  Abusing,  No.  1 ;  The  P.  E.  C.  Abuses  the  R.  E.  C. — (13).  Imitating,  but 
Abusing,  No.  2  ;  The  Present  Condition  of  the  P.  E.  C. — (14).  The  Reason 
of  the  Decline  of  the  P.  E.  C. — (15).  Imitating,  but  Abusing,  No.  3;  The  R. 
E.  C.  Retains  its  Birthright. — (16).  Date  of  Easter,  No.  1;  General  Princi¬ 
ples;  Crucifixion,  14 th  or  15 th  Nisanf — (17).  Date  of  Easter,  No.  2; 
Errors  of  Jarvis. — (18).  Date  of  Easter,  No.  3;  Errors  of  Seabury. — (19). 
Succession  in  the  R.  E.  C. — (20).  Clergy  of  the  R.  E.  C. 

1st  Section. 

“LET  WELL  ENOUGH  ALONE.” 

My  opinion,  officially  expressed  in  Council  at  Chicago  in  May  last,  has  been 
strengthened  by  subsequent  developments,'  and  I  now  desirb  to  press  the  importance 
of  making  no  change  for  several  years  in  our  Prayer-Book,  Articles,  and  Constitu¬ 
tion  and  Canons,  except  where  the  necessity  Is  apparent  to  all,  as  in  our  basis  of 
representation,  which  will  require  changes  from  time  to  time,  in  proportion  to  our 
increase  in  numbers.  And  that  increase  will  depend  upon  the  confidence  of  out¬ 
siders  that  they  can  predict  our  future.  They  will  avoid  us  if  we  appear  to  be  a 
vacillating  body  without  fixed  principles. 

The  members  of  the  First  Council  were  exclusively  those  who  had  belonged  to 
the  Old  Evangelical  party  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  They  presented  to 
the  Second  Council  the  Reformed  Prayer-Book,  and  the  Constitution  and  Canons ; 
and  to  the  Third  Council,  the  revised  Articles — all  exemplifying  the  reforms  which 
they  had  always  advocated  ;  and  after  the  first  Council  invited  all  to  join  them  who 
agreed  with  the  well-known  principles  of  the  Old  Evangelicals. 

We  have  been  charged  with  fanaticism  and  folly,  and  it  is  of  great  importance 
that  for  several  years,  we  leave  our  standards  untouched,  to  prove  that  we  are  men 
of  common  sense,  who  knew  what  we  wanted,  and  have  done  what  we  wanted,  and 
are  so  well  satisfied  with  what  we  have  done,  that  we  shall  continue  to  be  what  we 
are  now.  A  contrary  course  will  subject  us  to  remarks  like  the  following: 

The  vacillation  of  our  authorities  during  the  war  of  1812  became  a  subject  of 
ridicule,  and  near  the  lines  they  said  in  sport,  that  a  courier  was  asked  why  he  was 
in  such  great  haste.  He  answered,  “  This  package  on  the  saddle  before  me  contains 
orders  that  I  must  take  to  the  front  with  all  possible  speed.”  “  But  what  is  that 
package  behind  you  T  “  Countermands  !” 

In  the  Fall  of  1871,  at  Ostend,  in  Belgium,  when  waiting  for  the  train,  after  our 
baggage  had  been  examined,  I  entered  into  conversation  with  a  custom-house  offi¬ 
cer.  He  supposed  me  to  be  English.  I  said,  “No!  American.”  “Then  you  are 
a  republican  ?”  “  Tes.  But  you  have  a  republic  along  side  of  you  in  France.”  He 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


215 


1st  Section. 

answered,  “  I  have  no  confidence  in  it.  Never  satisfied  /”  Thus,  by  these  two  words, 
"  Jamais  content!"  giving  his  reason  for  doubting  the  stability  of  the  French 
Republic. 

In  the  Spring  of  1872,  after  having  had  as  city  guides,  a  Red  Republican  in  Lyons 
and  an  Imperialist  in  Paris,  we  had  a  moderate  Republican  in  and  about  Havre. 
They  gave  their  different  political  views.  To  the  last,  I  expressed  my  doubts  whether 
such  a  government  as  ours  could  be  sustained  in  France.  He  was  irritated  by  my 
remark,  but  subsequently  said,  “  The  great  difficulty  with  us,  is  that  we  have  five 
parties  [enumerating  them],  and  each  man  cares  more  for  his  party  than  he  does 
for  his  country.”  “  Precisely  so,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  I  think  that  France  is 
not  yet  ready  for  a  government  such  as  we  have.” 

Any  one  of  common  sense  and  experience  knows  that  analogous  dangers  are  be¬ 
fore  every  new  organization,  whether  it  be  a  nation,  or  a  church,  or  a  debating  so¬ 
ciety.  Taking  advantage  of  this  general  principle,  the  editor  of  Church  and  State, 
on  May  21, 1874,  inserted  a  false  statement  respecting  the  proceedings  of  our  Second 
Council,  and  upon  this  foundation  said :  “  It  is  easy  to  see  from  this  and  other  indi¬ 
cations,  what  are  the  dangers  that  are  before  this  new  organization.  The  grand 
mistake  they  have  made  is  in  supposing  that  they  nave  arrived  at  the  logical  ter 
minus  of  their  tendency.  They  are  just  beginning  to  get  a  glimpse  of  the  dreary 
waste  of  fanaticism  and  folly  that  lies  before  them.  They  will  find  that  there  are 
plenty  who  will  wish  to  reform  their  Church,  just  as  they  have  attempted  to  reform 
upon  the  Church  which  they  have  left.  ” 

Now,  the  experience  of  the  world  warns  us  to  be  on  our  guard  against  these  dan¬ 
gers,  and  to  “  let  well  enough  alone.’’ 

It  may  be  supposed  that  the  difference  between  me  and  those  who  desire  changes, 
is,  that  I  think  that  our  present  standards  could  not  be  improved,  while  they  think 
that  they  might  be  better.  On  the  contrary,  we  might  agree  precisely  on  this  point, 
since,  in  my  opinion,  there  have  been  unnecessary  departures  from  the  old  Prayer- 
Book  and  Articles.  But  in  accordance  with  the  above  views,  I  should  object  to 
changing  them  back  to  where  I  think  they  should  have  been  left,  until  we  shall 
have  become  a  much  larger  body.  * 


The  above  was  prepared  to  be  shown  in  manuscript  this  day,  to  those  collected  in 
Philadelphia  at  the  consecration  of  Bishop  Nicholson.  The  severity  of  the  weather 
prevents  my  going  there.  Therefore,  I  send  it  to  the  printer,  and  request  those  who 
shall  receive  copies,  to  distribute  them  among  the  delegates  to  the  next  Council. 
Should  these  views  prevail,  the  next  Council  will  soon  finish  its  work,  and  establish 
the  important  principle  of  conservatism. 

Passaic,  N.  J.,  Feb.  24, 1876  B.  Aychigg. 

2d  Section. 

PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  R.  E.  C. 

These  have  been  defined  for  ages.  They  are  not  of  recent  origin.  They  are  not 
the  invention  of  any  member  c  f  the  R.  E.  C. 

The  Declaration  of  Principles,  adopted  irrevocably  as  the  basis  upon  which  the 
R  E.  C.  was  organized  on  Dec.  2,  1873,  gives  a  summary  of  all  the  Principles  main¬ 
tained  for  ages,  by  the  general  consent  of  the  Evangelicals  in  the  P.  E.  C.  and 
Church  of  England,  which  were  in  opposition  to  others  in  the  same  Churches. 

The  Principles  of  the  P.  E.  C.  and  of  the  Church  of  England  that  are  not  con¬ 
demned  by  that  Declaration,  remain  the  common  law  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  in  the  same 


216 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


2d  Section. 

manner  as  the  common  law  of  England  remains  tlie  common  law  of  the  U.  S.  A. 
since  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

To  maintain  these  Principles,  no  one  was  admitted  to  vote  at  the  First  Council, 
except  in  accordance  with  the  Call  to  Organize  issued  by  Bishop  Cummins,  dated 
Nov.  15,  1873,  viz.  :  “  The  Lord  has  put  it  into  the  hearts  of  some  of  Ilis  servants 
who  are  or  have  been  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  the  purpose  of  restoring  the  old  paths  of  their 
father 8.” 

This  is  my  answer  to  an  anonymous  circular,  dated  March  7,  1876,  attacking  the 
circular  headed,  “  Let  well  enough  alone.” 

Passaic,  N.  J.,  March  20,  1876.  B.  Aycrigg. 

Note.— The  above  is  on  documentary  evidence,  and  I  know  that  the  documents  say  what  was 
intended,  having  as  a  layman  been  in  consultation  with  Bishop  Cummins  and  two  other  clergymen 
on  November  12-13, 1873,  when  the  Call  was  prepared  ;  and  President  of  the  Convention  on  De¬ 
cember  2,  1873,  when  it  organized  itself  into  the  R.  E.  C.  And  I  hold  that  it  w'ould  be  a  breach  of 
faith  to  attempt  to  force  any  other  principles  upon  a  minority  in  this  Church.  (See  Memoirs  of 
the  R.  E.  C.,  Chapter  VI. ,  IX.,  X.,  XI.,  XYI.) 

3d  Section. 

PROTECTION  OF  THE  LAITY  IN  THE  R.  E.  C. 

In  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Oct.  13,  1874, 
as  reported  in  the  Churchman,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Shipman,  of  Kentucky,  proposed  to 
define  what  is  “  Open  and  Notorious  Evil  Living,”  which  entitles  a  clergyman  to  expel 
a  layman  from  the  communion.  He  said,  that  if  the  rector  thought  the  carrying  a 
gold-headed  cane  “^open  and  notorious  evil  living  ”  he  might  expel,  and  the  layman 
could  have  no  redress,  unless  the  Bishop  reversed  the  action  of  the  rector. 

Also,  I  heard  and  believe,  that  among  parties  with  whom  I  was  acquainted, 
the  rector  and  a  vestryman,  at  a  vestry  meeting,  had  a  dispute  about  parish  matters, 
and  the  rector  threatened  to  excommunicate  the  layman  unless  he  ceased  his  resist¬ 
ance.  And  in  the  P.  E.  C.  he  had  the  canonical  power  to  do  so. 

And  the  Rubric  at  the  head  of  the  Burial  Service  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  says: 
“  Here  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  the  office  ensuing  is  not  to  be  used  for  any  unbaptized 
adults,  any  who  die  excommunicate  or  who  have  laid  violent  hands  on  themselves.’ 

On  the  contrary,  in  the  R.  E.  C.,  no  person  can  be  excommunicated  except 
on  trial  and  conviction  for  “  denial  of  the  faith,”  or  “  a  walk  and  conversation  un¬ 
worthy  of  a  Christian  profession,”  and  “  nothing  shall  be  admitted  as  matter  of 
accusation  which  cannot  be  proved  to  be  such  from  Holy  Scriptures.”  Then  he 
may  appeal  in  case  of  condemnation.  And  that  he  may  be  tried  by  his  peers,  two 
laymen  elected,  as  wardens,  shall  be  associated  with  the  rector  in  forming  the  Court. 
“  And  the  wardens  and  deputies  shall  be  chosen  from  among  the  communicants , 
and  when  practicable,  the  vestrymen  also.”  In  the  P.  E.  C.  the  wardens  need  not 
be  communicants. 

These  canons  were  adopted  unanimously  by  the  Second  Council  of  the 
R.  E.  C.,  and  were  subsequently  adopted  by  the  Free  Church  of  England. 

Now,  in  a  long  circular  dated  March  6,  1876,  the  only  objection  raised  against 
these  provisions  is,  that  in  accordance  with  Episcopal  usage,  the  wardens  who 
execute  these,  among  other  duties,  are  chosen  by  the  congregation  at  large.  And 
it  says:  “The  canon  as  it  stands  is  really  so  outrageous,  so  frightful,  that  it 
borders  on  the  1  udicrous.” 

This  case  exemplifies  the  danger  referred  to  in  the  two  former  circulars, 
headed  “Let  well  enough  alone,”  and  “Principles  of  the  R.  E.  C.v 

Passaic ,  N.  J.,  March  24,  1876.  (xviii.  Oct.  2, 1875).  B.  Aycrigg. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


217 


4tli  Section. 

4.  Disposition  to  try  new  experiments.  Irenseus,  editor  of  tlie  New  York 
Observer,  April  13,  1876,  relates  his  experience  respecting  a  favorite  grape-vine, 
which  his  three  amateur  friends  in  succession  thought  that  they  could  improve  by 
pruning  still  closer,  after  it  had  left  the  hands  of  a  professional  vine-dresser,  until 
his  favorite  was  very  nearly  destroyed.  He  also  relates  his  experience  with  suc¬ 
cessive  patent  ventilators,  each  promising  to  be  better  than  the  one  in  use,  and  all 
equally  bad.  Then  he  moralizes  :  “  The  Church  and  the  world,  religion  and  busi¬ 
ness,  are  disturbed  and  annoyed,  and  sadly  injured  like  my  garden  with  amateurs, 
pretenders,  quacks — men  who  have  new  and  improved  methods  of  doing  what  was 
well  enough  done  before,  but  which  they  would  do  with  patented  processes  peculiar 
to  themselves,  and  a  vast  improvement  upon  everything  that  has  gone  before. . .  . 
Conservatism  holds  fast  to  that  which  is  good,  and  with  it  works  onward  to  the 
overthrow  of  evil.  Radicalism  is  too  impatient,  rushes  ahead,  generally  knocks  its 
head  against  the  wall,”  etc. 

Now:  The  founders  of  the  R.  E.  C.  attempted  no  new  experiment,  (xix.  2.) 

5.  Special  service  for  the  “  dedication  of  infants  ”  is  a  liturgical  novelty  ; 
appears  to  be  intended  to  supersede  infant  baptism  ;  is  a  contradiction  of  the 
Principles  of  the  R.  E.  C.  (xix.  2) ;  is  printed  with  the  words  “permitted  to  be 
used,”  while  the  Journal  of  1875  (p.  20)  says  of  all  these  services,  “in  order  that 
they  might  be  carefully  considered  and  examined,  before  being  recommended  for 
use.”  (xvii.  May  12-18,  1875.) 

6.  To  stand  as  in  'pronouncing  the  Absolution  in  the  P.  E.  C.  This  is  proposed 
in  the  Journal  of  1875  (pp.  37,  38),  when  reading  sentences  of  Scripture  in  place  of 
the  Absolution.  This  is  understood  to  have  been  the  proposition  of  the  Latimer 
Society  in  the  P.  E.  C.  It  would  certainly  be  an  improvement  in  the  Prayer  Book 
of  the  P.  E.  C.  since  it  would  abolish  the  substance  of  sacerdotalism  by  abolishing 
the  absolution  itself,  which  Bishop  Onderdonk  said  “  does  not  simply  signify  that 
such  absolution  has  been  promised  to  the  penitent  ;  but  these  words  possess  peculiar 
efficacy  by  being  pronounced  by  a  regularly  authorized  clergyman.’’  (xii.  33.) 
But  the  shadow  of  sacerdotalism  would  be  restored  by  redirecting  the  minister  to 
stand  up,  while  the  people  continue  to  kneel,  since  in  the  P.  E.  0.  no  one  but  a 
“ priest  ”  or  Bishop  can  do  this.  In  our  present  service  we  use  familiar  words  and 
have  abolished  not  only  the  substance,  but  also  the  shadow  of  sacerdotalism. 

7.  To  abolish  Synods.  (< Journal  of  1875,  p.  39.)  This  would  be  a  new  prin¬ 
ciple  not  included  in  the  Principles  of  the  R.  E.  C.  (xix.  2.) 

8th  Section. 

R.  E.  C.  AND  EXTRANEOUS  ORGANIZATIONS. 

I  quote  from  the  Appeal  of  January,  1876:  “We  were  positively  refused 
admission  into  the  R.  E.  C.  on  account  of  our  poverty.  (I  wonder  if  there  is  such  a 
test  in  Heaven).” 

(I.  “  Nov.  8,  1874.  Toronto) . . .  .Bishop  Cummins,  assisted  by  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith, 
held  service  and  delivered  an  address  as  on  Nov.  1  at  St.  John  also,  (I.  Nov.  18, 
1874  St.  John). . . .“  On  Thursday,  Nov.  5,  the  Bishop  and  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith,  and 
B.  Aycrigg,  left  Boston,  and  arrived  in  Toronto  Nov.  7  also  (I.  Nov.  15,  1874, 
‘Ottawa,  Canada)  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  in  the  morning,  and  Rev.  Walter  Windeyer  in 
the  evening,  preached  in  the  Court  House.” 


218 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


8th  Section. 

Now  :  All  the  facts  here  quoted  are  connected  with  each  other  and  with  the  above 
charge  of  wrong.  The  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  was,  and  is  now,  the  President,  and  I 
was,  and  am  now,  a  lay  member  of  the  Standing  Committee  elected  by  the  General 
Council  as  advisors  of  the  Presiding  Bishop,  to  represent  the  General  Council  when 
not  in  session.  There  are  necessarily  many  matters  connected  with  the  action  of 
this  committee  that  are  confidential.  The  Presiding  Bishop  learns  the  reasons, 
while  others  only  know  the  results,  in  all  ordinary  cases.  This  case  is  extraordi¬ 
nary,  as  being  published,  and  I  think  that  I  may  with  propriety  state  my  own 
reasons  as  follows : 

From  the  reports  in  the  Canadian  newspapers,  giving  a  speech  of  this  clergy¬ 
man,  and  other  movements  of  the  Orange  Society,  I  feared  that  he  and  the  first 
parish  in  Toronto  (not  this  one)  were  committing  the  R.  E.  C.  as  identified  with 
that  political  party.  This  first  parish  having  been  admitted  by  vote,  I  presented 
these  Canadian  papers,  then  moved  a  reconsideration,  and  then  to  lay  the  question 
on  the  table  until  we  had  more  definite  information.  For  this  purpose,  Mr.  Smith 
and  myself  went  to  Toronto  as  above  quoted.  We  there  received  no  satisfactory 
information,  and  went  to  Ottawa  as  above,  to  consult  with  the  vestry  of  that  regu¬ 
larly  organized  parish.  Previous  to  this  conference  I  had  a  private  conversation 
with  a  gentleman  who  did  not  belong  to  the  vestry,  and  on  stating  to  him  the 
object  of  our  visit,  he  maintained  the  necessity  of  the  R.  E.  C.  being  identified  with 
the  Orange  Society,  and  I  answered  that  if  this  be  necessary  in  Canada,  I  thought 
that  our  churches  must  separate,  since  it  was  contrary  to  the  Principles  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  to  be  identified  with  any  extranebus  organization,  (xvii.  Jan.  1,  Freed- 
men  ;  xix.  2.)  Subsequently,  in  conference  with  several  of  the  vestry,  one  of 
the  members  maintained  that  the  Orange  Society  was  not  political.  I  stated  facts 
to  prove  that  it  was  decidedly  political.  The  vestrymen  generally  agreed  with  the 
principles  which  had  governed  the  committee  ;  admitted  that  there  had  been  some 
ground  for  their  action,  but  thought  that  the  objection  would  be  removed.  I  then 
put  t lie  question  formally  to  each  individual:  “Do  you  advise  us  to  admit  this 
parish?”  Each  one  said  “Yes.”  I  then  said  :  “We  will  report  your  advice,  and 
upon  that,  the  parish  will  doubtless  be  admitted.  The  question  is  of  most  impor¬ 
tance  to  you  in  Canada,  and  you  must  bear  the  responsibility This  report  having 
been  made,  the  first  parish  was  received. 

When  the  second  parish,  above  mentioned,  applied  for  admission,  the  same 
questions  arose,  in  my  mind  at  least.  The  first  parish  had  but  just  begun,  and  this 
second  parish  appeared  (to  me,  at  least)  unnecessary.  And  the  Standing  Committee 
uniformly  discountenances  the  formation  of  a  new  parish  where  they  suppose  that 
there  is  not  an  actual  demand,  and  that  for  want  of  such  demand  it  will  remain 
weak  and  sickly,  depending  for  existence  on  the  sustentation  fund.  But  the  refusal 
to  receive  at  first  without  satisfactory  evidence  of  its  propriety,  does  not  destroy  the 
existence  of  the  parish,  nor  prevent  its  subsequent  reception  by  the  committee,  as 
shown  in  the  case  of  the  first  parish  in  the  same  city. 

When  this  parish  applied  to  the  General  Council,  the  Standing  Committee  was 
released  from  its  responsibility.  The  Canadian  delegates,  with  the  means  of  know¬ 
ing  the  facts,  made  no  objection.  The  parish  was  received.  The  statement  of  facts 
now  connected  with  this  complaint  indicates  that  this  action  was  judicious,  (xvii. 
Jan.  1,  Toronto.) 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


219 


9th  Section. 

“  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.” 

Bishop  Lewis,  as  reported  in  the  Toronto  Globe  of  Dec.  31,  1874,  in  his  charge 
against  the  “  Church  Association,”  said:  “The  name  Protestant  never  occurs  in 
our  authorized  formularies  ;  it  is  never  used  in  the  description  of  our  Church  ;  it  is 
never  used  in  connection  with  our  National  Church  in  our  Acts  of  Parliament.  Its 
true  designation  was  always  felt  to  be  The  Church  of  England,  a  genuine,  veritable 
branch  of  the  Catholic  Church  throughout  the  world.”  (III.  Dec.  81, 1874 ;  xiii.  17 ; 
xviii.  June  15,  1875.) 

Again,  as  reported  in  the  Ottawa  Times  of  Feb.  23,  1874,  when  attacking  the 
Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  he  said  :  “  If  these  seceders  were  men  of  learning  he 
might  meet  them  in  discussion  fitly  enough.”  (II.  Feb.  23,  1874.) 

Now  :  These  positive  assertions  respecting  the  word  “  Protestant  ”  do  not  agree 
with  Rees’  Cyclopaedia  under  the  head  “  Crown — right  of,”  in  which  reference  is 
made  to  Blackstone,  Book  1,  C.  3,  and  to  12  and  13  W.  3d,  cap  3  ;  nor  under  the 
head  u  Oath — Coronation  ”  with  reference  1  W.  and  Mary,  stat.  l,c.  6.  Then  turn 
to  the  original  documents  as  found  in  the  New  York  Law  Library  and  in  the  Parlia¬ 
mentary  Library  in  Ottawa  and  find  as  follows  : 

30.  Car.  II.  stat.  2,  c.  1.  “An  Act  for  the  more  effectual  preserving  the 
King’s  person  and  Government  by  disabling  Papists  from  sitting  in  either  House  of 
Parliament.”  This  statute  enacts  an  oath  to  be  taken  by  all  members  of  Parliament 
containing :  . . . .“  I  do  believe  that  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  there  is 
not  any  transubstantiation  of  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  at  or  after  the  consecration  thereof  by  any  person  whatever  ;  and 
that  the  invocation  or  adoration  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  any  other  saint,  and  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass,  as  they  are  now  used  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  are  superstitious 
and  idolatrous.  And. . .  .1  do  make  this  declaration  and  every  part  thereof  in  the 
plain  and  ordinary  sense  of  the  words.... as  they  are  commonly  understood  by 
English  Protestants,  without  any  evasion,”  etc. 

Commons  Journal,  Feb.  12,  1688  (vol.  10,  p.  28),  recites  that  the  late  King 
James  II.  “  did  endeavor  to  subvert  and  extirpate  the  Protestant  religion,”  and 
enumerates  various  proofs,  among  which  is  “  6,  By  causing  several  good  subjects, 
being  Protestants,  to  be  disarmed,  at  the  same  time  when  Papists  were  both  armed 
and  employed  contrary  to  law  that  James  II.  has  abdicated  and  the  throne  is  va¬ 
cant  ;  that  the  Prince  of  Orange  (“whom  it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God  to  make  the 
glorious  instrument  of  delivering  this  kingdom  from  Popery  and  arbitrary  power) 
did  (by  the  advice. . . .)  cause  letters  to  be  written  to  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Tem¬ 
poral,  being  Protestant,”  for  electing  members  of  Parliament,  “in  order  to  such  an 
establishment  as  that  their  religion. . .  .might  not  be  in  danger  of  being  subverted.” 
And  such  Parliament  being  met,  enumerate  among  other  things — “  7,  That  the 
subjects  who  are  Protestants  may  have  arms  for  their  defense  suitable  to  their  con¬ 
dition . They . claim. _ as  their - rights”  the  matters  enumerated,  and 

express  dependence  on  the  Prince  of  Orange,  and — “  Resolved,  that  William  and 
Mary. . .  .be  declared  King  and  Queen. . .  .to  hold  the  crown. . .  .during  their  lives 
and  the  life  of  the  survivor  of  them. . .  .after  their  deceases,  the  said  crown. . .  .be 
to  the  heirs  of  the  body  of  the  said  Princess  ;  and  for  default  of  such  issue,  to  the 


220 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


9th  Section. 

Princess  Anne  of  Denmark  and  the  heirs  of  her  body;  and  for  default  of  such  issue, 
to  the  heirs  of  the  body  of  the  said  Prince  of  Orange.” 

1.  W.  and  Mary,  stat.  2,  c.  2.  “  An  Act  declaring  the  rights  and  liber¬ 

ties  of  the  subject,  and  settling  the  succession  to  the  crown,”  recites  the  declaration 
(next  above  copied),  the  acceptance  of  the  crown  by  the  King  and  Queen,  their 
Majesties’ pleasure  that  Parliament  should  “make  settlement  of  the  religion ....  of 
this  kingdom.”  Parliament  confirms  the  declaration  and  limits  the  crown  as  therein 
expressed. 

Then  Sec.  IX.,  copied  from  the  Statutes  at  Large:  “And  whereas  it  hath  been 
found  by  experience  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  this 
Protestant  kingdom  to  be  governed  by  a  Papist  Prince,  or  by  any  King  or  Queen 
marrying  a  Papist,  the  said  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  and  Commons  do  further 
pray  that  it  may  be  enacted,  that  all  and  every  person  and  persons  that  is,  are,  or 
shall  be  reconciled  to,  or  shall  hold  communion  with  the  See  or  Church  of  Rome, 
or  shall  profess  the  Popish  religion,  or  shall  marry  a  Papist,  shall  be  excluded,  and 
shall  be  forever  incapable  to  inherit,  possess,  or  enjoy  the  crown  and  government  of 
this  realm  and  Ireland,  and  the  dominions  thereunto  belonging,  or  any  part  of  the 
same  ;  and  in  all  and  every  such  case  or  cases,  the  people  of  these  realms  shall  be, 
and  are  hereby  absolved  of  their  allegiance  ;  and  the  said  crown  and  government 
shall  from  time  to  time  descend  to  and  be  enjoyed  by  such  person  or  persons,  being 
Protestant,  as  should  have  inherited  and  enjoyed  the  same,  in  case  the  said  person 
or  persons  so  reconciled,  holding  communion,  or  professing,  or  marrying  as  afore¬ 
said,  were  naturally  dead.”  Blackstone  gives  the  substance  of  this  statute. 

1.  W.  and  Mary,  c.  6.  “  An  Act  for  establishing  the  Coronation  Oath.”. . .  . 

“That  one  uniform  oath  may  be,  in  all  time  to  come,  taken  by  the  Kings  and 
Queens  of  this  Realm  ”. . .  enacts  a  form  to  be  administered  to  William  and  Mary, 
wrhich  includes  tbe  following :  “  Archbishop,  or  Bishop,  Will  you,  to  the  utmost  of 
your  power,  maintain  the  laws  of  God,  the  true  profession  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
Protestant  Reformed  Religion  established  by  law. . .  .King  and  Queen,  All  this  I 
promise  to  do.”  This  form  is  to  be  used  in  future. 

1.  W.  and  Mary,  Sess.  1,  c.  18.  “  An  Act  for  exempting  their  Majesties’ 

Protestant  subjects,  dissenting  from  the  Church  of  England,  from  the  penalties  of 
certain  laws,” — usually  called  the  Toleration  Act.  Sec.  14  directs,  in  case  of  a 
refusal  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  and  supremacy:  “Provided,  always.... 
unless  such  person  can,  within  thirty-one  days  after  such  tender  of  the  declarations 
to  him,  produce  two  sufficient  Protestant  witnesses  to  testify  upon  oath  that  they 
believe  him  to  be  a  Protestant  dissenter;  or  a  certificate  under  the  hands  of  four 
Protestants  who  are  conformable  to  the  Church  of  England  ;”  this  will  allow  him 
to  make  a  declaration  of  the  same  purport  instead  of  the  oath. 

12.  Wm.  III.  cap  2.  “An  Act  for  the  further  limitation  of  the  Crown,  and 
better  eecuring  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  subject;”  after  reciting  1  W.  and 
M.  stat.  2,  c.  2  (as  above),  adds:  “Therefore,  for  a  further  provision  of  the  suc¬ 
cession  of  the  Crown  in  the  Protestant  line;”  enacts  that  the  Princess  Sophia  “is 
next  in  succession  in  the  Protestant  line;”  and  limits  the  Crown  to  her;  “  and  the 
heirs  of  her  body  being  Protestants  ;”  and  that  whosoever  should  thereafter  come 
to  the  possession  of  the  Crown,  should  join  in  communion  with  the  Church  of 
England  as  by  law  established, 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


221 


9th  Section. 

13.  Wm.  III.  c.  6.  “  An  Act  for  the  further  security  of  His  Majesty’s  person, 
and  the  succession  of  the  Crown  in  the  Protestant  line,  and  for  extinguishing  the 
hopes  of  the  pretended  Prince  of  Wales,  and  all  other  pretenders,  and  their  open 
and  secret  abettors.” 

Blackstone,  Book  1,  c.  3  ;  after  reciting  the  above  12  and  13  Wm.  3d,  says 
that  this  is  the  last  limitation  of  the  Crown  that  has  been  made  by  Parliament. 

1.  George  1,  Sess.  2,  c.  13.  “An  Act  for  the  further  security  of  His 
Majesty’s  person  and  government,  and  the  succession  of  the  Crown  in  the  heirs  of 
the  late  Princess  Sophia,  being  Protestant,”  etc. 

10.  G.  IV.  c.  7,  13  April,  1829.  “An  Act  for  the  relief  of  His  Majesty’s 
Roman  Catholic  subjects,”. ..  .Sec.  xxiv.  And,  whereas,  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  England  and  Ireland,  and  the  doctrine,  discipline,  and  government 
thereof,  and  likewise  the  Protestant  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  and  the 
doctrine,  discipline,  and  government  thereof,  are  by  the  respective  Acts  of  Union  of 
England  and  Scotland,  and  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  established  permanently 
and  inviolably.” 

Now  :  I  submit  that  these  extracts  prove  that  Bishop  Lewis  is  in  error  as  to  the 
use  of  the  word  “Protestant.”  And  the  quotations  (xviii.  June  15,  Church  of 
England,)  prove  that  he  is  equally  in  error  as  to  the  other  parts  of  his  assertion. 
The  above  (excepting  II.  Feb.  23,  1874;  and)  including  a  part  of  (xviii.  June  15), 
was  printed  in  the  Ottawa  Times  of  Feb.  5,  1876.  As  far  as  known,  there  has  been 
no  denial  of  its  historical  accuracy. 

Also,  these  notes,  obtained  to  support  the  statement  held  in  abeyance  (xx,  8), 
have  a  direct  reference  to  the  P.  E.  C.  (xii.  25). 

10th.  Section. 

CAREY  0RDINATI0I7,  JULY  2,  1843. 

The  Hartford  Churchman,  of  Oct.  9,  1875,  charges  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church  with  “ imitating,  but  abusing  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.”  In 
answer,  we  will  now  examine  the  facts  connected  with  the  Carey  Ordination,  ex¬ 
tracted  from  a  bound  volume  of  pamphlets,  collected  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Henry 
Anthon ;  containing  “  The  True  Issue  for  the  True  Churchman— a  statement  of 

facts  in  relation  to  the  recent  ordination _ by  Drs.  Smith  and  Anthon _ 1843,” 

pp.  46;  and  “Speech  of  Mr.  [Judge]  John  Duer _ in  Convention  of  the  P.  E.  C., 

of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  on - 29th  Sept.,  1843,  in  support  of  the  resolutions 

offered  by  Judge  Oakley,”  pp.  47. 

Drs.  Smith  and  Anthon  (p.  27)  speaking  of  Mr.  Carey,  say  :  “  He  deemed  the 
difference  between  us  and  Rome  such  as  embraced  no  points  of  faith  ;  doubted 
whether  the  Church  of  Rome  or  the  Anglican  Church  were  the  more  pure  ;  consid¬ 
ered  the  Reformation  from  Rome  unjustifiable  and  followed  by  grievous  and 
lamentable  results,  though  not  without  others  of  an  opposite  character  ;  faulted  not 
the  Church  of  Rome  for  reading  the  Apocrypha  for  proof  of  doctrine  ;  did  not  con¬ 
sider  that  we  were  bound  to  receive  the  thirty-nine  articles  of  our  Church  in  any 
close  and  rigid  construction  of  the  same  ;  declared  that  he  knew  not  how  to  answer 
the  question  that  had  been  repeatedly  asked,  whether  he  considered  the  Church  of 
Rome  to  be  now  in  error  in  matters  of  faith  ? — was  not  prepared  to  pronounce  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  an  absurd  or  impossible  doctrine,  and  regarded  it  as 


222 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


10th  Section. 

tauglit  within  the  last  hundred  years  as  possibly  meaning  no  more  than  we  mean 
by  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  ;  did  not  object  to  the  Romish  doctrine  of  pur¬ 
gatory  as  defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent.  Thus  far  for  Negatives,  and  now  for 
Affirmatives.  He  believed  that  the  state  of  the  soul  after  death  was  one  in 
which  it  could  be  benefited  by  the  prayers  of  the  faithful  and  the  sacrifice  of  the 
altar  ;  regarded  the  denial  of  the  cup  to  the  laity  as  a  severe  act  of  discipline  only  • 
justified  the  invocation  of  saints  ;  in  one  instance  declared  that  he  did  not  deny, 
but  would  not  positively  affirm  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  ;  in  another 
that  he  received  the  articles  of  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.,  so  far  as  they  were  repetitions 
of  the  decrees  of  that  Council !  And  what  were  the  explanations  already  alluded 
to,  and  the  record  which  was  deemed  by  one  presbyter  (Rev.  Mr.  Higbee)  so  impor¬ 
tant,  and  which  weighed,  it  seems  with  our  diocesan  and  six  of  our  brethren,  against 
such  a  mass  of  evidence  as  that  presented  in  the  examination  and  here  summed  up  ? 
To  our  apprehension  they  amounted  virtually  to  nothing,”  (pp.  28-83.)  On  July 
1,  1843,  the  Rev.  Drs.  Antlion  and  Smith  protest  in  private  to  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin 
T.  Onderdonk,  D.D.,  against  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Carey,  but  without  effect.  Then 
(pp.  35,  36)  Messrs.  Anthon  and  Smith  on  Sunday,  July  2,  publicly  protest  in  writ¬ 
ing  :  “  On  the  appeal  being  made  by  the  Bishop,  ‘  Brethren,  if  there  be  any  of  you 
who  knoweth  any  impediment  or  notable  crime  in  any  of  these  persons  presented 
to  be  ordered  deacons,  for  which  he  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  that  office,  let  him 
come  forth  in  the  name  of  God,  and  show  what  the  crime  or  impediment  is.’  ” 
[And  the  Rubric  says:  “  And  if  any  great  crime  or  impediment  be  objected,  the 
Bishop  shall  cease  from  ordering  such  person  until  such  time  as  the  party  accused 
shall  be  found  clear  of  that  crime.”] 

“  These  documents  having  been  read. . .  .the  bishop. . .  .expressed  himself :  .... 
‘  The  accusation. . .  .lias  recently  been  fully  investigated  by  me,  with  the  knowledge 
and  in  the  presence  of  his  accusers,  and  with  the  advantage  of  the  valuable  aid  and 
counsel  of  six  of  the  worthiest,  wisest,  and  most  learned  of  the  presbyters  of  this 
diocese,  including  the  three  who  are  assisting  in  these  solemnities. . .  .There  was  no 
just  cause  for  rejecting  the  candidates’  application. . .  .no  reason  for  any  change  in 
the  solemn  services  of  the  day. . .  .All  these  persons  being  found  meet  to  be 
ordered,’  ”  etc. 

These  public  protests  by  Messrs.  Anthon  and  Smith  brought  out  many  violent 
attacks  upon  them,  especially  in  the  Churchman,  then  edited  by  Dr.  Seabury,  one 
of  the  examiners.  These  attacks  brought  out  this  pamphlet,  in  which  (pp.  42,  43) 
they  say  :  . . . .“  The  principle  involved. . .  .covers  this  whole  ground.  Shall  virtual 
conformity  with  Rome  form,  or  not  form,  an  impediment  to  ordination  f  and  does 
not  an  ordination  held  in  despite  of  such  conformity  furnish  sad  and  melancholy 
proof  of  a  growing  indifference  to  those  great  principles  for  which  at  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  martyrs  died,  and  a  gradual  assimilation  to  Rome,  which  promises  at  no  distant 
day  identity  with  her  faith,  if  not  union  with  her  polity  ?  It  is  too  late  now  to 
press  the  maxim,  ‘  Obsta  principiis  ’ — resist  the  beginnings  of  evil.  Partially,  though 
possibly  too  feebly,  certainly  not  successfully,  that  resistance  has  been  made.  The 
question  now  is,  Shall  a  stand  at  last  be  made,  and  will  Churchmen  finally  rally  in 
defence  of  their  own  principles  and  standards,  so  eminently  Scriptural  ;  or  will  they 
be  content  that  even  they  who  are  to  minister  to  them  in  holy  things  shall  come 
to  them  with  a  double  creed — with  the  thirty-nine  articles  and  the  creed  of  Pius 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


223 


10th.  Section. 

IV.,  with  the  Prayer-Book  and  the  Missal. . .  .And  what  Christian  Churchman  will 
not,  in  view  of  the  rapid  changes  effected  by  the  last  few  years,  be  ready  to  exclaim 
in  deep  anxiety,  ‘  Whereunto  will  these  things  grow  ?  ’  Our  children  have  been  by 
baptism  brought  within  the  Church’s  fold  ;  but  into  what  were  we  and  they  bap¬ 
tized?  Was  it  not  into  the  faith  as  it  then  was?  Was  it  into  a  changeling  faith, 
that  shall  go  on  changing  and  retrograding  year  by  year  until  it  becomes  identical 
once  more  with  that  system  of  darkness  and  delusion,  from  which,  not  without  con¬ 
flict  and  blood,  the  Church  came  forth  at  the  Reformation  ?. . .  .The  true  issue  now 
involved  is  the  issue  between  the  Church  and  Romanism.” 

In  the  New  York  Diocesan  Convention,  Sept.  29,  1843  (p.  5,  Judge  Duer’s 
speech),  Judge  Oakley  offered  the  following  :  Whereas. .  .a  doubt  exists. .  .whether 
in  case  any  impediment  be  alleged,  and  the  same  has  undergone  a  previous  investi¬ 
gation  upon  a  private  complaint,  and  has  been  determined  by  the  Bishop  to  be  un¬ 
founded  [as  in  the  Carey  case]  it  is  or  is  not  the  duty  of  the  Bishop  to  suspend 
such  ordination. . .  .Resolved,  That  the  delegates  from  this  diocese  to  the  General 

Convention . be  requested  to  propose . a  canon  which  shall . provide  that 

when  a  Bishop  shall  receive  from  any  two  presbyters  objection  in  writing  to  the 
ordination  of  any  candidate  for  orders  in  the  Church,  notice  of  the  time  and  place 
of  the  examination. . .  .shall  be  given  to  such  presbyters,  who  shall  thereupon  have 
the  right  to  be  present  at  and  take  part  in  such  examination  ;  and  that  for  the 
avoidance  of  any  misunderstanding  or  mistake,  all  questions  put  to  such  candidate, 
and  the  answers  made  by  him,  shall  be  reduced  to  writing.” 

Now  (pp.  6 — 13.  Antlion  and  Smith) :  Mr.  Carey  was  a  member  of  Dr.  Smith’s 
congregation  until  he  changed  to  St.  John’s  church.  When  he  applied  to  Dr. 
Smith  for  a  certificate,  Dr.  Smith  referred  to  reports  that  he  had  heard,  and 
questioning  Mr.  Carey  on  the  points  mentioned  in  the  beginning  of  these  extracts  ; 
he  subsequently  reduced  to  writing  the  questions  and  answers,  and  afterwards  sub¬ 
mitting  them  to  Mr.  Carey,  made  such  corrections  as  Mr.  Carey  desired.  This 
document  in  writing  was  presented  at  the  meeting  composed  of  Bishop  B.  Onder- 
donk  and  Revs.  W.  Berrian,  John  McVickar,  Samuel  Seabury,  Joseph  H.  Price, 
Edward  G.  Iligbee,  Benjamin  I.  Haight — approving;  and  Drs.  Henry  Antlion  and 
Hugh  Smith — opposing  the  ordination.  Bishop  Ives  was  not  present  at  this 
examination,  but  assisted  at  the  ordination,  (p.  16.)  “  Objections  were  then  made 
to  these  questions,  and  to  their  being  put  and  answered  in  writing.’ ....“  The 
Bishop  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  ‘questions  in  writing  might  be  put,  but  that  the 
examined  could  not  be  compelled  to  reduce  his  answers  to  writing.’  ”...  .Objections 
were  several  times  urged  by  Drs.  Seabury,  McVickar,  Berrian,  and  by  Messrs. 
Haight  and  Iligbee,  to.  ..  .noting  down  the  answers  of  the  examined;  and.... 
against  taking  any  notes  or  memoranda  whatever,”  (p.  17).  “The  objection  was 
overruled  by  the  Diocesan,  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  organized  meeting — 
that  we  had  no  secretary,  and  therefore  could  have  no  minutes.” 

Judge  Duel*,  in  supporting  the  resolution  of  Judge  Oakey,  as  above  quoted  (p. 
18  of  his  speech),  said:  “  It  is  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  Church,  for  the  prevention 
of  future  scandal  and  future  discord,  that  the  candidate  must  be  solemnly  acquitted 
of  the  charge  solemnly  preferred  against  him.”  [Then  (p.  21),  with  respect  to  this 
Carey  examination.]  ... .“  Certainly  to  the  mass  of  those  by  whom  the  publications 
on  the  subject  have  been  read,  it  seems  a  necessary  conclusion  that  evasion. 


224 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


10th  Section. 

equivocation,  coloring,  suppression  or  denial  of  the  truth  must  he  imputed  to  one 
party  or  the  other.” 

(Pp.  25, 26,  S.  and  A.)  “  Dr.  McVickar. .  .  .intimated  a  hope  that  no  use  would  be 

made  of  the  notes.”. . . Dr.  Seabury  remarked  that  he  understood  Dr.  Anthon  to 
have  disclaimed  all  intention  of  making  public  the  notes  taken.”  These  were  in 
both  cases  denied,  and  the  notes  were  forced  out  in  self-defence,  by  the  attacks  on 
Smith  and  Anthon. 

Now:  this  examination  (pp.  17-24,  S.  and  A.),  thus  characterized  by  Judge 
Duer,  resembles  the  examinations  of  a  man  who  is  undoubtedly  guilty  of  some 
crime,  while  the  Revs.  Seabury,  McVickar,  Berrian,  Haight,  and  Higbee,  as  his 
counsel,  knowing  all  the  facts,  use  every  expedient  to  prevent  Drs.  Smith  and 
Anthon  from  finding  out  the  truth.  And  then  they  try  to  keep  the  whole  matter  a 
profound  secret ;  while  Bishop  Onderdonk,  with  the  approval  of  Bishop  Ives  and 
of  six  of  the  leading  clergymen  in  New  York,  whom  Bishop  Onderdonk  calls  “  the 
worthiest,  wisest,  and  most  learned  of  the  presbyters  of  this  diocese,”  ordains  the 
man  who  holds  the  views  first  quoted,  to  teach  those  views  to  the  rising  genera¬ 
tion  in  the  P.  E.  C.  Hence  the  inference,  that  they  all  taught  the  same,  privately. 

This  pamphlet  of  Smith  and  Anthon  first  exposed  to  the  world  the  extent  to 
which  Puseyism  had  secretly  advanced  in  the  P.  E.  C.  About  a  year  later  I  heard 
Bishop  Onderdonk  come  out  openly  on  one  point  (xii.  33).  About  two  years  later 
I  heard  Dr.  Berrian  come  out  openly  on  another  point  (xii.  34)  ;  and  the  same  year 
I  heard  Dr.  Higbee  advance  his  semi-Romish  views  to  a  large  extent,  and  with 
great  energy  (xii.  34).  These  were  all  in  St.  John’s  church,  New  York.  Dr.  Higbee 
repeated  the  same  sermon  in  Jersey  City.  Then  it  created  great  surprise  and 
excitement.  At  the  present  day  a  new  generation  has  sprung  up  under  such  teach¬ 
ing,  and  now  the  majority  in  the  P.  E.  C.  have  advanced  so  far  towards  Rome,  that 
a  portion  of  those  who  agreed  with  Drs.  Smith  and  Anthon  have  thought  it  their 
duty  to  abandon  the  P.  E.  C.  and  organize  the  R.  E.  C.  (xix.  2).  For  this,  they 
have  received  the  most  violent  personal  abuse  from  13  Bishops,  5  Doctors  of  Divin¬ 
ity,  and  6  newspapers  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (xiii.  10) ;  and  when,  in  self-defense,  they  state 
facts  like  the  above,  they  are  charged  with  “ Imitating ,  but  Abusing”  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  (xvii.  Oct.  9th,  1875.)  This  was  printed  in  Epis.  Rec.,  Feb.  26, 
1876— B.  A. 

1 1th  Section. 

FREE  PREACHING  AND  THE  PARISH  SYSTEM. 

February,  1876. 

1.  Bishop  Huntington,  of  Central  New  York,  makes  the  following  common  sense 
remarks  under  this  head,  in  the  Hartford  Churchman  of  Dec.  11, 1875,  in  his  “  Paper 
prepared  for  the  Church  Congress  ”  : 

“  The  parts  mentioned,  appear  to  belong  at  the  basis  of  any  rational  inquiry,  as 
to  the  right  way  of  preaching  the  gospel  in  these  United  States. . .  .in  the  lawful 
variety  and  freedom  of  her  ministrations . 

“That  anybody ...  .should. ..  .show  itself  chiefly  studious,  how  to  conform 
itself  to  foreign  patterns,  hampering  its  action  by  rules  borrowed  from  distant 
national  conditions,  having  its  feet  clogged  and  its  hands  tied  by  precedents  which 


I 


CHAPTER  XIX.  225 

11th  Section. 

are  not  primitive,  or  prohibitions  which  are  not  ecumenical,  more  anxious  not  to 
overstep  a  certain  narrow  track,  than  to  feel  and  follow  the  inspirations  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  would  be  not  only  the  worst  of  anachronisms,  but  a  terrible  offense  against 
heaven  and  against  humanity . It  is  not  using  the  whole  width  of  Catholic  doc¬ 

trine  that  makes  heterodoxy  ;  and  it  is  not  liberty  or  flexibility  within  the  bounds 
of  order,  that  makes  revolution . 

“  Some  time  or  other — and  one  might  reasonably  expect  not  very  long  hence  — 
it  will  be  taken  up  as  a  serious  question  by  our  American  Church,  whether,  except 
itself,  there  ever  was  such  a  thing  anywhere. . .  .as  a  company  of  Christians. . .  .to 
forbid  its  members. . .  .to  come  together. . .  .on  week  days  to  pray. . .  .unless  they 

will  engage  always  to  continue  doing  that  for  half  an  hour . Any  order  to  cease 

*  to  teach  and  preach  Jesus  Christ  ’  to  lost  men,  except  after  a  service  including  a 
general  exhortation,  chants,  versicles  and  eighth  collects,  has  not  been  taken  out 
of  the  college  of  the  apostles . The  Church  argument. . .  .is  in  favor  of  uni¬ 

formity  :  but  uniformity  is  an  expensive  luxury,  if  you  put  away  for  it,  any  chance 
of  saving  the  soul’s  blood . 

“  Should  any  Churchman  question  whether  all  this  comports  with  cliurchly 
principles  and  precedents,  he  will  do  well  to  turn  searchingly  to  church  history. 

. . .  .Everybody  admits  the  deadening  effect  of  routine . The  wheels  go  ‘  ’round 

and  ’round,”  but  somehow'  they  do  not  ‘bite.’  And  therefore  to  interrupt  now  and 
then,  the  *  procession  of  ponderous  polysyllables,’  to  exchange  the  ‘  half-hour  prom¬ 
enade  of  solemn  sentences,’  from  the  ranks  of  which  every  home-spun  word  is 
banished,  and  which  even  in  metaphor  is  ‘  dressed  up  in  prim  Sunday  clothes,’  for  a 
little  evangelical  speech,  seasoned  with  common  sense,  pungent,  colloquial,  graphic, 
will  do  no  damage . 

“  I  am,  for  one,  at  a  loss  to  see  how  the  gospel  can  be  delivered  to  these  Ameri¬ 
can  Dioceses,  with  even  a  tolerable  fidelity,  till  we  have  a  class  or  order  of  ministers, 
with  a  special  sort  of  training,  with  no  restrictions  to  bar  their  liberty  of  moving 
from  place  to  place. . .  .Either  continue  apostolic,  and  have  evangelists,  or  reject 

evangelists  and  say  nothing  more  about  apostolicity . Our  argument. ..  .is  for 

the  free  use  of  all  the  preacher’s  possible  strength,  outside  of  the  walls  which 
enclose  a  drilled  and  polished  congregation,  where  he  will  speak  eye  to  eye,  with 
his  matter-of-fact  auditory,  and  where  a  manuscript  will  be  impossible.” 

2.  Now,  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  has  made  all  the  reforms  here  advocated 
by  Bishop  Huntington,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  “  Outside  of  the  walls 
which  enclose  a  drilled  and  polished  congregation,’’  and  even  inside  of  those  walls 
except  on  Sunday  morning  and  before  a  congregation  of  “  this  church,”  our  clergy 
are  bound  by  no  set  form  or  service  ;  and  their  parishes  have  no  geographical 
bounds,  “  to  bar  their  liberty  of  moving  from  place  to  place,”  or  to  prevent  others 
from  doing  the  same  ;  and  they  can,  at  any  time,  exchange  pulpits  with  non-episco- 
pal  clergymen. 

3.  The  contrary  rules  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  are  copied  from  the 
Church  of  England,  “  hampering  its  action  by  rules  borrowed  from  distant  national 
conditions,  having  its  feet  clogged,  and  its  hands  tied,  by  precedents  which  are  not 
primitive,  and  prohibitions  which  are  not  ecumenical,”  because  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land  is  a  political  “  establishment,”  and  is  governed  by  Parliament,  which  is  “  a 
heterogeneous  body  of  atheists,  theists,  Jews,  Roman  Catholics,  and  every  shade  of 


226 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


11th  Section. 

orthodox  and  heterodox  protestants,”  as  says  the  London  Spectator,  quoted  by 
Church  and  State,  (iii.  Nov.  11.  1874  ;  xviii.  June  15,  1875). 

4.  On  the  contrary :  Bishop  Doane,  of  Albany,  in  his  Convention  address 
of  1876,  reported  in  the  Churchman  (xviii.  Feb.  26,  1876),  says  :  “It  is  not ‘the 
differences  of  administration  ’  among  us  that  do  harm.  It  is  the  spirit  of  super¬ 
ciliousness,  of  self-assertion,  of  fault-finding,  of  uncliaritableness  that  condemns  us 
so  often  in  things  that  we  allow,  and  makes  so  much  that  is  really  good  to  be  evil 
spoken  of.  . .  .And  the  Church  of  which  you  and  I  are  members,  has  the  purpose 
and  the  power  to  mould  our  habits  of  thought  and  speech ;  our  ways  of  worship 
and  of  work,  our  devotions  and  our  methods  of  doing  our  duty  (xiii.  10.). . .  .We 
have  the  perfect  right  and  duty,  I  think,  in  simple  loyalty,  to  think  her  ways  the 
best;  not  to  condemn  and  criticise  other  ways,  but  to  exalt  and  illustrate  her  ways 

_ You  cannot  be  Churchmen  and  either  Presbyterians  and  Methodists. ..  .1  am 

saying  nothing  against  Homan  Catholics,  or  Presbyterians,  or  Methodists  [or  the R. 
E.  C.  ?  xx.  1],  in  this  ;  but  it  is  better  to  be  one  or  the  other  ;  and  as  we  cannot  be 
both,  then  we  think  it  better  to  be  the  one  thing  that  we  are. . .  .You  may  think 
the  Churclily  habits  very  old  garments  ...and  the  new-fangled  ways  may  be 
more  a  la  mode — more  fashionable,  more  popular,  more  taking,  more  effective.  But 
you  cannot  piece  out  the  old  garment  with  the  new.  You  may  think  the  liturgical 
bottles  of  our  worship  very  old,  and  the  new  wine  of  free  prayer  and  ‘  free  preach¬ 
ing  ’  (whatever  that  means)  (xix.  11-1),  may  seem  very  sweet  and  sparkling  ;  but 
you  cannot  put  the  new  into  the  old. . .  .There  are  Churclily  ways  of  doing  every¬ 
thing  that  is  good  to  do. . .  .The  modern  method  of  what  is  called  a  revival  is  un- 
churchly. . .  .A  gospel  of  pardon  without  absolution,  and  of  grace  without  seals;  a 
preaching  that  proclaims  the  way  lost,  and  gives  no  guide  ;  that  tells  of  hunger 
and  offers  no  food;  that  holds  up  the  Head  that  is  in  heaven  and  hides  the  Body 
that  is  on  earth  ;  that  cries  unclean  and  offers  no  washing ;  that  seeks  and  reaches 
no  deeper  down  than  the  emotions — this  is  not  the  Christ  that  we  have  learned. . .  , 
Better  let  them  alone,  for  I  cannot  conceive  how  any  Churchman  can  cast  in  his  lot 
with  such  a  system. . .  .We  have  the  Church  in  her  authority,  in  the  Sacraments, 
in  the  means  of  grace,  in  the  provision  for  private  confession,  when  needed,  in  the 
power  of  authoritative  absolution,  in  Confirmation,”  etc.  (xviii.  Nov.  6,  Board.) 

12th.  Section. 

IMITATING,  BUT  ABUSING.  No.  1. 

Under  this  heading,  the  Hartford  Churchman  of  October  9,  1875,  says  :  “  The 
only  specialty  for  which  the  ‘  Reformed  *  have  the  exclusive  market,  is  the 
abuse  of  the  P.  E.  C. . .  .The  whole  stock  in  trade  of  the  ‘  Reformed  ’  is  confined  to 
the  faults  of  the  body,  which  it  imitates.”  Now,  as  to 

ABUSE, 

thirteen  Bishops,  five  Doctors  of  Divinity,  and  six  newspapers  of  the  P.  E.  C.  use 
the  expressions  towards  the  R.  E.  C.,  as  collected  (xiii.  10.) 

No  answer  whatever  was  made  to  any  of  these  charges  by  any  one  of  the  Re¬ 
formers,  until  on  May  21  or  27,  1874,  the  editor. of  Church  and  State  made  mis¬ 
statements  as  to  facts  at  the  Second  Council  of  the  R.  E.  C.  which  (ii.  June  8,  1874,) 
were  contradicted  by  a  Reformer,  who  used  this  expression  :  “  Has  the  periodical  in 
question  lost  its  character  for  truth  and  veracity,  or  does  it  publish  without 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


227 


12th  Section. 

investigation  ?”  The  next  answer  was  the  open  letter  of  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith  (ii.  June 
10,  1874),  proving  the  historical  errors,  and  denying  the  charges  of  Bishop 
Stevens,  above  quoted  at  June  10.  This  was  further  criticised  (xiii.  24)  with  this 
remark  :  “  Bishop  Stevens  stands  alone  in  raising  a  question  of  veracity  between 
himself  and  the  members  of  the  R.  E.  C.  Since  Mr.  Smith  has  corrected  his 
historical  errors,  and  the  errors  of  his  charges,  I  will  simply  quote  the  wTords  of 
Burke,  1  Men  know  a  little,  presume  a  great  deal,  and  so  jump  to  the  conclusion.’  ” 

The  third  answer  from  a  Reformer  was  (ii.  Dec.  16,  1874,)  in  answer  to  an  attack 
by  Church  and  State  of  Nov.  18,  1874,  denying  its  assertion  that  “no  attack  was 
made  in  General  Convention  upon  Bishop  Cummins  or  the  cause  he  represents,” 
and  meeting  several  other  remarks,  which  indicated  that  the  Reformers  had  no 
reason  to  complain  of  the  treatment  they  had  received,  and  containing  this  pas¬ 
sage  :  “  In  conversation  with  a  non-Episcopal  clergyman,  I  expressed  my  surprise 
that  so  many  Bishops  had  become  so  much  excited  as  to  lose  their  balance,  and 
forget  that  they  ought  at  least  to  be  gentlemen.”  He  answered,  “  They  cannot 
appreciate  the  ridiculous  figures  they  cut  before  those  who  do  not  belong  to  their 
own  sect.” 

Again,  the  Reformers  of  the  first  Council  thus  characterized  (xiii.  10),  were 
exclusively  those  “  who  are  now,  or  have  been,  ministers  and  laymen  in  the  P.  E. 
C.,”  as  stated  by  Bishop  Cummins  in  his  Call  to  Organize,  dated  Nov.  15,  1873,  (ix.) 
As  members  of  the  old  Evangelical  party,  they  had  used  every  endeavor  to  prevent 
the  Romeward  changes,  of  late  years  introduced  into  the  P.  E.  C.,  as  shown  by  the 
Philadelphia  Declaration  of  Nov.  5,  1867  (xi.  5),  (xviii.  June  9,  1875.)  The  Chicago 
Protest  of  February  18,  1889  (xi.  14),  the  Chicago  Conference  of  June  16-17,  1869 
(xi.  15),  and  the  letter  of  sympathy  for  Rev.  Charles  E.  Cheney,  of  May  13,  1871, 
(xi.  16.)  But  they  could  not  stem  the  torrent,  and  the  Church  Journal  (iii.  Feb.  25, 
1874,)  says :  “  The  old-fashioned  Evangelicals  swamped  into  a  hopeless  and  help¬ 
less  minority,  stand  looking  on,  asking  what  we  propose  to  do  about  it.”  (xviii.  Jan. 
1,1876.  No  hope.) 

These  Evangelicals  in  the  P.  E.  C.  had  several  courses  before  them.  First,  they 
might  do  as  has  been  done  by  Church  and  State,  as,  says  the  correspondent  of  the 
Episcopal  Recorder  (xviii.  June  9,  and  Sept.  22,  1875.)  “The  open  sale  of  this 
paper. . .  .included  a  transfer  of  at  least  two  thousand  Evangelical  families  to  the 
High-Cliurch  camp. . .  .The  Church  and  State  was  made  up  by  uniting  the  Protes¬ 
tant  Churchman  and  the  Christian  Witness. . .  .for  a  whole  generation  the  accredited 
organs  of  the  Evangelical  party ...  .By  the  sale  of  Church  and  State,  this  High- 
Churcli  teaching  is  deliberately  introduced  into  hundreds  of  Evangelical  families, 
by  one  of  the  parties  who  owed  the  opportunity  to  do  so,  to  the  confidence  placed 
in  the  previous  professions  of  fidelity  to  the  Evangelical  cause.  And  is  not  this  a 
part  of  a  movement  which  began  by  an  effort  to  suppress  the  Evangelical 
Societies  ?v 

By  thus  surrendering  at  discretion,  the  Evangelicals  would  retain  their  social 
positions  in  what  the  Southern  Churchman  calls  “  a  most  respectable  society  ” 
(xviii.  July  8,  1875),  and  they  would  retain  their  share  of  the  seven  millions  of 
property,  and  seven  millions  of  annual  income  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (xviii.  Jan.  22, 1876); 
they  would  not  subject  themselves  to  the  seven  objections  stated  by  Dr.  Newton 
(xvii.  May  5,  1875),  nor  to  such  abuse  by  the  representatives  of  the  P.  E.  C.  as 


22S 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


12th  Section. 

quoted  (xiii.  10.)  But  if  they  adhered  to  tlieir  Evangelical  views,  this  connection 
would  be  only  nominal,  and  their  contributions  would  cease  (xix.  13-7  to  14.) 

Or,  Second :  They  might  adhere  to  their  Evangelical  views,  and  “  fight  it  out 
within  the  Church,”  with  no  other  effect  than  to  produce  a  schism  (xii.  43-59), 
when  we  find  the  views  of  the  ruling  majority  thus  represented  by  the  Church 
Journal,  as  quoted  by  Church  and  State  (iii.  Nov.  11,  1874) :  “  May  the  hand  be 
withered  and  the  tongue  dumb  that  writes  or  speaks,  to  organize  a ‘party ’or 
promote  ‘  views.’”  But, 

Third :  Some  of  these  Evangelicals,  rejecting  both  the  above  alternatives,  with¬ 
drew  from  the  P.  E.  C.,  which  they  believed  to  allow  false  doctrines,  and  by  a 
Declaration  of  Principles  proclaimed  themselves  Protestants,  pure  and  simple,  in 
union  with  the  Protestant  world,  from  which  they  had  been  cut  off  by  the  exclud¬ 
ing  canon  of  1868  (xii.  57,  59.)  For  this  they  have  been  abused  as  above  shown 
(xiii.  10.)  To  answer  this  abuse  by  argument,  and  prove  by  facts  the  condition  of 
the  P.  E.  C.,  and  the  propriety  of  separation,  addresses  have  frequently  been  made 
by  the  members  of  the  R.  E.  C.  These  arguments  are  not  met  by  argument,  but 
by  abuse,  in  charging  these  facts  as  abuse.  And  such  is  the  case  with  the  charge 
at  the  head  of  this  article,  “  Imitating,  but  Abusing.” 

13th.  Section. 

IMITATING,  BUT  ABUSING.  No.  2. 

This  charge  against  the  R.  E.  C.  is  proved  to  be  the  reverse  of  the  truth  (xix. 
12.)  The  extracts  from  the  remarks  of  thirteen  Bishops  of  the  P.  E.  C.  against  the 
R.  E.  C.  (xiii.  10)  closely  resemble  the  curses  by  the  Pope  (xiii,  10J.)  We  now 
come  to  the 

RIGHT  OF  ABUSING  OR  CURSING. 

Bishop  Odenheimer  (ii.  June  3,  1874,)  takes  the  same  position  respecting  the  R. 
E.  C.  as  on  page  112  of  “  The  New  Jersey  Journal,”  of  1869,  when  referring  to  the 
resignation  of  the  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith:  “  The  Holy  Catholic  Church. . .  .marches  on 
to  victory,  by  virtue  of  the  presence  of  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God,  who  has 
promised  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail  against  her.”  Cardinal 
McCloskey  is  equally  confident  respecting  his  Church  (xviii.  Nov.  29,  1875.) 

The  Church  Journal  (iii.  Dec.  4, 1873,)  shows  the  exclusive  claims  of  the  P,  E. 
C.  (xviii.  March  1,  1876,  Lay.) 

The  Bishop  of  Maine  (xviii.  Nov.  6,  1875,)  in  his  Convention  address  said  : 
‘‘  Were  all  nominal  Christian  believers  among  us  united  in  the  same  confession  of 
faith,  and  in  a  common  organization,  it  would  still  be  difficult  enough  to  stem  the 
tide  of  unbelief  and  irreligion. . .  .but  when  there  is  no  unity  of  organization  or  of 
effort,  but  on  the  contrary,  jealousies,  rivalries,  and  strifes,  we  find  here  not  only  an 
element  of  weakness  in  the  Christian  body,  but  the  most  fruitful  cause  of  that  in¬ 
difference  and  scepticism  which  so  extensively  prevails  amongst  us. . .  .And  who  can 

offer  a  remedy. . .  .but  a. . .  .Church  which,  like  her  Divine  Master . can  speak  as 

‘one  having  authority.’  Such  is  the  claim  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  we  are  bound  to 
declare  and  exhibit  everywhere  this  distinctive  character  of  the  Church.”  And  the 
presiding  Bishop  (xviii.  Nov.  6,  1875;  Dec.  10,  1875,  Eng.) 

The  Churchman  (xviii.  Nov.  20,  1875,)  says :  “  The  frequency  and  ease  with 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


229 


13th  Section. 

which  ministers  of  the  Congregational  body  are  called  and  transferred  to  preside 
over  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Dutch  Societies,  may  perhaps  be  looked  upon  as  a 
disruption  of  party  lines  and  the  softening  of  asperities. . .  .Our  good  friends  have  a 
way  of  bridging  it  over,  ‘Christian  Union/  or  forgetfulness,  or  something  else 
doing  the  service  of  seven-leagued  boots.” 

Now  :  the  above  extracts  illustrate  the  well-known  fact  that  many  in  the  P.  E. 
C.  regard  that  branch  as  especially  “  the  Church.”  And  we  may  infer  from  these, 
and  the  remarks  of  others,  that  there  are  those  who  believe  that  the  Bishops  of  the 
P.  E.  C.,  by  virtue  of  the  “electric  touch”  of  the  Apostolic  Succession,  are  almost, 
if  not  quite,  infallible,  and  have  the  same  right  of  cursing  as  is  distinctly  claimed 
by  the  Pope  (xiii.  10,  10£);  and  that  no  one  has  a  right  to  reply  (xviii.  Jan.  22, 
1876,  Bp.  of  M.)  To  this  we  demur  and  bring  proof  to  the  contrary. 

The  Bishop  of  Maine,  as  above  quoted,  says :  “  Jealousies,  rivalries,  and  strifes 
. . .  .the  most  fruitful  cause  of  that  indifference  and  scepticism  which  so  extensively 
prevail  amongst  us.”  Amongst  whom?  The  Churchman,  as  above,  shows  that 
“jealousies,  rivalries,  and  strifes”  do  not  prevail  between  the  Congregational 
“body,”  and  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Dutch  “  Societies.”  Nor  is  it  between 
them  and  the  Methodists  ;  nor  is  it  between  the  R.  E.  C.  and  any  Evangelical 
Church,  since  we  frequently  find  them  all  associating  on  the  most  friendly  terms  of 
perfect  equality  (xvii.  1875;  May  5,  Brook.;  June  16,  Ref.  1876,  Jan.  1;  Ott.  and 
Chicago;  12,  Ya.;  Feb.  1,  Use  ;  9,  Vic.;  Mar.  1,  do.  do.  etc.,  etc.) 

But  the  above  extracts  show  that  the  P.  E.  C.  treats  these  “bodies”  and 
“societies”  with  a  haughty  air  of  superiority;  and  we  know  that  the  ruling 
majority  in  the  P.  E.  C.  refuses  to  join  with  non-Episcopal  Churches,  in  united 
efforts  for  the  spread  of  Christianity;  and  these,  coupled  with  the  terms,  “dissent¬ 
ers,”  “sects,”  “bodies,”  “societies,”  exhibit  on  the  part  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  would 
naturally  excite  in  others  “jealousies,  rivalries,  and  strifes,’’ if  those  thus  designated 
cared  anything  about  them  (ii.  Dec.  16,  1874,  B.  A.;  iii.  June  4,  1874 ;  xviii.  Feb.  5, 
1876,  Bp.;  March  1,  Lay.)  So  much  for  the  P.  E.  C.  towards  non-Episcopalians. 
And  a  strong  expelling  motive  to  drive  me  out  of  the  Church  of  my  ancestors,  was 
the  use  of  such  terms  among  Christians,  that  are  analogous  to  the  terms  used  by 
persons  who  claim  to  belong  to  a  high  Brahminical  caste  among  the  Heathen 
(iv.  8.) 

Then,  within  the  P.  E.  C.  the  “jealousies,  rivalries,  and  strifes,”  that  are  justly 
rebuked  by  the  Church  Journal  (iii.  Jan.  7,  1875),  and  the  remarks  of  Bishop  Cox 
(xviii.  Sept.  4  and  11, 1875,)  exceed  anything  that  I  know  of,  among  non-Episco¬ 
pal  Churches. 

Then,  the  abuse  (xiii.  10)  poured  out  in  a  turbid  flood  upon  the  R.  E.  C.  by 
thirteen  Bishops  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  who  claim  the  succession  from  the  Apostles,  and 
by  Doctors  and  by  newspapers,  I  suppose  to  be  unprecedented,  except  by  the  Pope 
(xiii.  104.) 

Hence,  the  P.  E.  C.  appears  to  stand  unrivalled  for  its  “jealousies,  rivalries,  and 

strifes,”  (both  without  and  within) _ “  the  most  fruitful  cause  of  the  indifference 

and  scepticism  that  so  extensively  prevail  amongst’ us.”  And  this  does  not  indicate 
that  this  is  especially  “  The  Church  ”  (xviii.  Nov.  6,  1875,  House.) 


230 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


13  Section. 

Again,  “The  Holy  Catholic  Church. . .  .marches  on  to  victory,  by  virtue  of  the 
presence  of  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God,  who  has  promised  that  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  her,”  as  Bishop  Odenheimer  very  properly  says,  as  above. 
If,  then,  the  P.  E.  C.  be  that  Church,  as  he  and  others  maintain,  the  facts  should 
prove  that  it  “  marches  on  to  victory,”  while  the  following  facts  appear  to  prove 
the  contrary,  viz.  : 

1st.  The  P.  E.  C.,  or  its  parent,  was  among  the  early  Churches  in  this  country 
(xviii.  Dec.  30, 1875,)  but  now  it  is  one  of  the  small  denominations,  and,  according 
to  the  census  of  1870,  contained  only  one  in  twenty-eight  of  the  Protestants,  with¬ 
out  including  the  Roman  Catholics  (xiii.  10£.)  Then  since  the  organization  of  the 
R.  E.  C.  on  December  2,  1873,  and  the  abusive  remarks  thereon  by  the  P.  E.  C.  (xiii. 
10)  we  have  the  following  admissions  (2d  to  15tli)  by  persons  high  in  authority  in 
the  P.  E.  C.,  viz. : 

2d.  “  R.  B.  D.”  [R.  B.  Duane,  Sec.  ?]  (hi.  Feb.  20,  1875.) 

3d.  Pastoral  of  the  House  of  Bishops  (iii.  Nov.  3,  1874.) 

4th.  Bishop  Whittingham  (iii.  Sept.  10,  1874.) 

5tli.  Bishop  Littlejohn  (iii.  May  20,  1874.) 

6th.  Rev.  N.  H.  Schenck,  D.D.  (xviii.  Nov.  11, 1875,)  at  the  P.  E.  C.  Congress, 
said :  “  It  was  a  surprising  fact  that  to-day  there  was  a  smaller  number  of  candi¬ 
dates  for  holy  orders  than  there  was  six  or  seven  years  ago. . .  .A  maxim  which 
unfortunately  had  proved  true,  was  that  the  fool  of  the  family  had  been  designated 
for  the  ministry.” 

[Then  add  7  to  11  from  the  Churchman  of  Nov.  6,  1875.] 

7.  “  The  Foreign  Committee  reported  that  their  receipts  for  the  year  were  only 
$89,724.74,  being  $10,275.64  less  than  in  1874,  and  $24,385.34  less  than  in  1873.” 
[See  11th.]  (xviii.  Nov.  6.) 

8.  “  The  Foreign  Committee  being  also  in  debt  to  the  extent  of  more  than  $30,- 
000,”  (xviii.  Nov.  6.) 

9.  “The  Committee  stated  that,  in  their  judgment,  the  need  of  a  more  thorough 
enlistment  of  the  people  in  the  great  missionary  work  was  becoming  more  apparent 
every  year,”  (xviii.  Nov.  6.) 

10.  “  The  Nineteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  Society  for  the  Increase  of  the 
Ministry,  says :  ‘Notwithstanding  the  warnings  of  the  last  General  Convention, 
and  the  earnest  exhortations  of  the  Pastoral  Letter  [3d],  and  the  forcible  charge  of 
almost  every  Bishop  to  his  own  Diocesan  Convention  [4th,  5th],  the  candidates  for 
Holy  Orders  have  not  only  not  increased,  but  have  actually  fallen  off  during  the 
past  year  [2d  11],  threatening  widespread  destruction  throughout  the  Church,’  ” 
(xviii.  Nov.  6,  1875.) 

11.  “The  Special  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Missions  of  the  P.  E.  C.”  in  its 
report  on  the  Domestic  Missions,  signed  by  Bishops  Whipple  and  Doane,  and  by  six 
others,  says:  “  The  increase  of  our  ministry  last  year  in  fifty-six  dioceses  was  only 
twenty-eight  over  the  deaths  [2d].  In  four  years,  from  1870  to  1874,  there  was  a 
decrease  of  200  in  the  number  of  our  candidates  for  orders,  and  of  these  candidates 
there  were  but  few  of  that  class  which  represents  the  highest  culture,  talent,  and 
social  standing  in  the  Church. . .  .We  had  supposed  that  this  deficiency  was  caused 
by  the  worldliness  of  the  times,  and  that  it  was  common  to  all  religious  bodies;  but 
we  find  that  during  the  same  period,  the  Presbyterian  Church  increased  in  the 


CHAPTEE  XIX. 


231 


13th  Section. 

number  of  its  candidates  for  the  ministry,  from  511  to  800,  and  that  last  year  they 
raised  $250,000  for  theological  education.  Their  efforts  have  been  rewarded  in  a 
more  highly  educated  ministry,  and  in  the  large  increase  of  communicants. . .  .The 
pressure  of  work  and  of  unoccupied  fields,  will  tempt  us  to  accept  those  who  are 
not  in  every  way  fitted  for  the  Master’s  work.”  (xviii.  Nov.  6,  1875;  Jan.  22,  1876, 
Bp.  G.) 

12.  Bishop  Clark,  in  his  Convention  address,  as  reported  in  the  Southern 
Churchman  (xviii.  Sept.  28,  1875),  referred  “  to  the  alarming  decrease  in  the  num¬ 
ber  of  candidates  for  Holy  Orders,  which  had  fallen  off  some  twenty  or  thirty  per 
cent,  since  the  Convention  of  1871.  The  Church  cannot  be  made  to  grow  by  any 
process  of  mere  pulverization — by  converting  presbyters  into  Bishops,  and 
dividing  dioceses — while  the  general  supply  of  clergy  is  gradually  diminishing.” 

13.  Bishop  Howe,  of  Central  Pennsylvania  (reported  in  The  Churchman,  xviii 
Jan.  1,  1876),  in  his  Convention  sermon,  says:  “  The  number  of  candidates  for  Holy 
Orders  in  1871  was  448,  and  in  1874  only  228;  a  falling  off  of  nearly  one-half.  . .  .It 
is  time  for  our  clergy  to  look  these  alarming  facts  in  the  face.” 

14.  The  Foreign  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Missions  ( Churchman ,  xviii.  Jan. 
29,1876),  Special  Committee,  says:  “Last  year’s  excess  of  payments,  $16,474.02 
-(-$16,231.46  for  the  preceding  year,  make  indebtedness  at  the  commencement  of 
this  fiscal  year  $32,705.48. . .  .For  two  years  or  more,  the  expenses  have  exceeded 
the  income  at  the  rate  of  more  than  $16,000  per  annum. . .  .We  think  the  Commit¬ 
tee  will  realize  a  sum  equal  to  last  year.  ..  .$90,000.  Amount  required  for  the 
year,  $87,028.  Add  arrearages,  $32,705,  makes  $119,733  to  be  provided  for.  (xviii. 
Jan.  29,  Canada.) 

15.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Harriman,  as  reported  in  the  Evening  Post  (xviii.  April  15, 
1876),  in  his  call  for  help  in  aid  of  the  Society  for  the  Increase  of  the  Ministry, 
states  that :  “  The  increase  of  ministers  in  the  P.  E.  C.  tell  off  from  ten  per  centum 
a  year  from  1830  to  1840;  to  six  per  centum  a  year  in  the  decade  1850  to  1860; 
from  1860  to  1871  the  annual  increase  of  the  clergy  came  down  to  four  per  centum, 
and  now,  in  1876,  it  has  fallen  to  two  per  centum.” 

Now  :  these  fifteen  quotations  do  not  indicate  that  the  P.  E.  C.  “marches  on  to 
victory  ”  to  prove  its  divine  right  to  speak  “  as  one  having  authority,”  and  by 
virtue  of  that  authority,  to  use  such  language  towards  the  R.  E.  C.  as  that 
quoted  (xiii.  10.)  But  they  do  indicate  that  there  is  something  wrong  in  the  P.  E. 
C.  that  is  causing  its  decline.  And  facts  indicate  that  the  cause  of  that  decline 
caused  the  separation  of  the  R.  E.  C.  from  the  P.  E.  C.  Remove  the  cause  and  the 
conditions  would  be  reversed  (xiv.) 

14th  Section. 

THE  REASON. 

In  the  midst  of  these  lamentations,  no  one  in  the  P.  E.  C.  ventures  to  express  an 
opinion  as  to  the  fundamental  cause  of  decay  (xviii.  Jan.  22,  1876,  Bp.  of  M.)  But 
facts  indicate  that  it  is  the  semi-Romanism  that  was  introduced  about  1841  (xix. 
10;  xviii.  Jan.  5,  29,  1876  ;  do.;  Feb.  5,  26;  Mar.  22),  and  “  from  1841  there  has  been 
a  falling  off  at  a  steadily-increasing  ratio  ”  [2d],  From  the  above  numbered  state¬ 
ments  it  appears  that  the  candidates  which  they  desire,  and  as  a  general  rule,  can 
not  get,  are  [11th]  “of  that  class  that  represents  the  highest  culture,  talent,  and 


232 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


14th  Section. 

social  standing  in  tlie  Church”  [3d];  “whose  parents  are  able  to  give  them  an 
unrestricted  choice  of  professions.”  While  of  those  that  they  do  get  [3d],  “hut  a 
small  proportion  . . .  .are  self-supporting.”  [5th].  And  for  the  “  past  twenty  years, 
nothing  but  a  marked  physical  or  mental  debility  has  debarred  any  one  ”  ;  and  [6], 
“the  fool  of  the  family  had  been  designated  for  the  ministry.”  This  is  by 
authority. 

Now :  I  believe,  that  in  proportion  to  numbers,  the  P.  E.  C.  is  the  richest  of  all 
the  denominations  (xviii.  Jan.  22,  1876,  Statistics.)  But  it  is  evident  from  the  above 
that  the  candidates  they  can  not  get  are  those  who  would  not  be  raised  in  social 
standing,  nor  be  induced  to  stifle  their  convictions  for  the  sake  of  pecuniary 
support.  Of  this  class  in  the  ministry,  those  who  prefer  Romanism,  pure  and 
simple,  leave  the  P.  E.  C.  in  that  direction.  We  know  this  to  be  the  fact  (xviii. 
March  1,  1876.)  Others  of  the  same  class  (but  not  all)  who  desire  Protestantism 
pure  and  simple,  leave  the  P.  E.  C.  for  the  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Dutch 
Reformed,  Congregational,  Independent,  Baptist,  and  Reformed  Episcopal  Churches. 
We  know  all  these  to  be  facts  (xi.  24.)  Others  of  the  same  class,  be  they  Roman¬ 
ists,  semi-Romanists,  or  Protestant,  who  might  be  willing  to  enter  the  ministry  of 
the  P.  E.  C.,  if  it  were  the  same  in  all  places,  may  reasonably  draw  back  from  a 
Church  in  the  condition  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  as  described  by  Church  and  State  (III. 
Sept.  10,  1874;  do.)  I  know  of  one  such  case  of  withdrawal  (xii.  45.) 

The  fifteen  admissions  quoted  above,  have  all  been  uttered  since  the  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  on  Dec.  2,  1873.  When  analyzed,  they  prove  that  the 
semi- Romanism  which  now  controls  the  P.  E.  C.  is  the  cause  of  its  decay  (xii. 
56-59.)  To  change  from  this  control  to  Protestantism  pure  and  simple,  the  R.  E. 
C.  separated  from  the  P.  E.  C.  (xi.)  For  this  its  members  have  been  charged  with 
wrong,  in  the  roughest  kind  of  language,  by  thirteen  Bishops,  six  newspapers,  and 
five  D.D.’s  (xiii.  10.)  To  defend  themselves  from  the  charge  of  wrong,  they  have 
frequently  stated  facts  to  prove  the  necessity  of  separation.  This  statement  of 
facts  is  called  “abuse,”  although  the  facts  themselves  are  not  denied;  and  such  is 
the  charge  by  the  Churchman  at  the  head  of  this  paper,  “Imitating,  but  Abusing’’ 
(xvii.  Oct.  9,  1875;  xviii.  Jan.  29,  Feb.  5,  Feb.  26,  1876 ;  March  1,  1876,  Rome ;  Mar. 
22,  Sister.) 

15th  Section. 

IMITATING,  BUT  ABUSING.  No.  3. 

From  this  attack  on  the  R.  E.  C.  (xix.  12),  it  appears  that  in  1875,  the  Church¬ 
man  is  not  satisfied  with  the  strong  family  likeness  (xix.  2),  in  place  of  finding  the 
R.  E.  C.  flying  off  to  the  “  dreary  waste  of  fanaticism  and  folly  ”  as  predicted  (ii. 
May  21  and  June  3,  1874.) 

AS  TO  IMITATING. 

When  the  Colonies  separated  from  England  and  formed  these  U.  S.  A.,  they  did 
not  attempt  any  Utopian  novelties  like  some  other  nations,  but  retained  the  old 
system  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed  ;  except  in  a  few  points,  where  their 
experience  had  proved  it  to  be  defective.  The  result  has  shown  the  importance  of 
conservatism. 

When  the  P.  E.  C.  separated  from  the  Church  of  England,  it  followed  the  same 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


233 


15th  Section. 

general  rule  as  the  civil  government,  and  framed  the  Prayer-Book  of  1785  as 
described  (xi.  2.) 

In  1789,  the  P.  E.  C.  abandoned  these  modifications  of  1785,  and  more  closely 
imitated  the  Prayer-Book  of  the  Church  of  England  (xix.  11-a.  ;  xix.  9  ;  xii. 
12-24.) 

But  the  founders  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  having  all  belonged  to  the  Evangelical  party 
in  the  P.  E.  C.  (ix.  3),  had  learned,  by  experience,  the  evils  of  this  reaction  ;  and, 
abandoning  the  P.  E.  C.,  with  its  Prayer-Book  of  1789,  feturned  to  the  general 
principles  of  1785  (xix.  2),  and  thus  retained  what  was  theirs  by  birthright ;  and  in 
this  country  older  than  the  principles  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (xi.;  xix.  2.)  And  upon  the 
basis  of  this  Prayer-Book  of  1785,  thus  abandoned  by  the  P.  E.  C.,  the  Episcopate 
was  transmitted  from  Canterbury  to  the  P.  E.  C.  (vi.  7,  8.)  And  this  the  Hartford 
Churchman  calls  “  Imitating  ”  the  P.  E.  C. 

16th  Section. 

DATE  OF  EASTER.  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  AND  NOTE. 

The  following  three  papers  (xix.  16,  17,  18)  have  appeared  in  a  different  form  in 
the  Episcopal  Recorder  of  Jan.  26,  Feb.  2,  9,  and  23, 1876.  They  were  suggested  by 
various  papers  on  the  same  subject  in  the  Churchman ,  Southern  Churchman ,  and 
New  York  Times  of  about  the  same  dates. 

The  references  without  letters  are  to  the  Chapters  and  Sections  in  this  book. 
Those  with  letters  refer  to  the  like  symbols  and  Sections  in  “Appendix  II, — Report 
on  the  Gregorian  Calendar,”  Journal  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  in  1874;  or  to  the  same  in  the 
full  work  on  Calendars,  from  which  the  parts  included  in  this  report  were 
extracted. 

16-1.  The  14th  Nisan  began  in  the  evening  of  Thursday,  April  3,  a.d.  33,  and 
ended  in  the  evening  of  Friday,  April  4;  and  Christ  was  crucified  on  this  14tli 
Nisan,  as  counted  by  the  Jews  in  that  year;  as  shown  by  Mark  (15-42)  and  John 
(19-31);  and  by  the  present  Jewish  Calendar  (NB.  Characters  5,  6,  7.) 

16-2.  Nevertheless,  Christ  ate  His  passover  at  the  regular  date  on  the  Mosaic 
15th  Nisan,  on  Thursday  evening,  and  He  was  crucified  on  the  same  15tli  Nisan, 
which  ended  on  Friday  evening,  according  to  the  Mosaic  date  of  the  Passover,  as 
determined  during  the  Second  Temple,  by  the  date  of  the  visible  new  moon  of  Nisan. 
This  is  proved  by  independent  calculation  (NB.  AC.  16),  and  by  the  present  Jewish 
calendar;  if  we  omit  the  postponement  by  (AO.  Transfers),  which  did  not  prevail 
in  a.d.  33.  But  at  that  date  the  Sanhedrim  postponed  the  date  one  day,  if  the  new 
moon  of  Nisan,  when  astronomically  visible,  was  not  actually  seen  by  two  wit¬ 
nesses,  on  account  of  its  obscuration  b^  clouds.  And  such  appears  to  have  beeu 
the  case  in  A.D.  33  (NB.  Characters  8,  9;  NB.  AO.  11.) 

16-3.  The  “  Quartodicimans  ”  of  Asia,  held  Easter  on  the  14th  Nisan,  and  on 
any  day  of  the  week.  The  Westerns  held  Easter  on  Sunday  next  thereafter.  In 
A.D.  314,  the  Council  of  Arles  decided  in  favor  of  the  Westerns,  and  in  a.d.  325,  the 
Council  of  Nicea  (or  Nice)  confirmed  it,  but  gave  no  astronomic  rule,  and  this  date 
was  annually  determined  by  the  Egyptian  astronomers  until  the  century  after  the 
Council,  when  the  Nicean  calendar  (N.C.)  was  substituted  for  these  annual  predic¬ 
tions  (NB.  NC.  1  to  4,  6.) 


i 


234: 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


16th  Section. 

16-4.  This  NO.  consisted  of  two  parts.  The  lunar  portion  was  the  Nicean 
cycle  of  235  new  moons  in  nineteen  years;  and  the  solar  portion  was  called  the 
“  Paschal  Canons/’  which  directed  “  That  the  21st  day  of  March  shall  be  accounted 
the  vernal  equinox.”  The  substance  of  these  Paschal  Canons  is  given  in  the 
Prayer-Books  of  the  P.  E.  C.  and  of  the  Church  of  England,  under  the  head  of 
“  Tables  and  Rules.”  All  the  following  assert  or  imply  that  the  vernal  equinox  fell 
A.D.  325,  March  21,  viz. :  Long,  Montucla,  Ren  wick,  Rees,  Adams,  Missal,  Seaburv. 
But  the  British  Act  of  Parliament,  1752,  says  :  “  On  or  about  tha  21st  day  of 
March.”  And  calculation  proves  that,  counting  Jerusalem  as  the  prime  meridian, 
the  vernal  equinox  about  that  date  (as  at  present  in  new  style)  fell  on  March  21, 
only  in  the  third  year  after  leap-year  (NB.  AC.  16-7),  and  this  latest  date,  March 
21,  being  “  accounted  the  vernal  equinox,”  prevented  Easter  from  falling  on  the 
day  of  the  Passover  in  three  years  out  of  four,  as  might  have  happened  if  March 
20,  the  actual  date  in  a.d.  325,  had  been  given  as  the  single  date.  And  such  was 
the  object  of  the  Nicean  rule,  as  stated  in  the  Missal,  “  ne  cum  Judaeis  convenia- 
mus  ”;  and  by  Lindo,  “ne  videantur  Judaizare,”  (NB.  NC.  3,  4,  6,  7-3.) 

16-5.  But  this  Nicean  Cycle  gave  only  the  dates  of  the  235  new  moons.  And 
to  the  dates  of  the  nineteen  Paschal  new  moons,  some  added  12,  others  13,  and 
others  14  days  for  the  full  moon  of  Nisan  of  the  Paschal  Canons  (16-3.)  This 
confusion  was  terminated  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  a.d.  534,  when  by  common 
consent  13  days  were  added  to  the  dates  of  the  19  Paschal  new  moons,  omitting  all 
the  rest  of  the  235  moons  in  the  cycle,  and  thus  establishing  the  14tli  Nisan  as  the 
Nicean  full  moon  of  Nisan.  This  formed  the  old  style  calendar,  used  by  the 
Westerns  until  the  introduction  of  the  Gregorian  Calendar  (NS.  18),  and,  in  a  Greek 
form,  still  regulates  the  ecclesiastical  dates  of  the  Russo-Greek  Church  (16-1,  2,  3;) 
(AM.  3;  NS.  18;  OS.  2;  NB.  Calendars  18-11,  12;  19;  NB.  GND.  4,  8,  12  13;  NB. 
NC.  5,  6.) 

16-6.  The  14th  Nisan  having  been  thus  established  as  the  full  moon  intended 
by  the  Council  of  Nicea,  is  now  the  standard  Mosaic  or  astronomic  date  of  GN. 
(Golden  Number)  in  our  calendar;  at  the  standard  age  of  about  14.416  days  after 
conjunction,  or  a  little  less  than  mean  full  moon  14.765  days  after  conjunction.  And 
this  is  nearly  the  average  of  the  Mosaic  or  astronomic  moon,  which  varied  between 
13.75  and  15  days  old  at  the  beginning  of  14tli  Nisan.  And  it  is  nearly  the 
same  age  as  the  moon  for  the  14tli  Nisan  by  the  present  Jewish  calendar  (NB.  AC. 
2-2,2-3,2-16.7;  NB.  Calendars  18-5,  6;  18-9,10;  18-15,  16.)  Hence  the  calendar 
“full  moon”  may  vary  about  three-quarters  of  a  day  more  and  less  than  the 
standard  14.416  days  old,  and  still  be  the  Mosaic  moon  of  the  14th  Nisan. 

16-7.  This  Jewish  calendar  (AO.)  keeps  the  moon  of  14th  Nisan  nearly  to  the 
same  age,  14.455  days  old,  as  in  1873,  and  increasing  only  at  the  rate  of  5f  seconds 
per  year,  and  counts  the  astronomical  difference  between  a  leap-year  and  a  common 
year,  and  counts  the  dates  invariably  from  6  p.m.  at  Jerusalem  (or  as  Muler  says, 
from  Eden  in  Babylonia,  which  makes  but  little  difference).  But  the  use  of  this 
calendar  is  very  complicated  (NB.  AO.  11-15.) 

6-8.  The  Gregorian  Calendar  is  more  complex  in  its  construction  than  the 
Jewish  calendar,  but  in  its  application  much  more  simple  and  less  precise.  The 
age  of  the  moon  varies  from  the  standard  14.416  for  the  following  reasons.  First. 
This  single  date  is  in  maximum  Julian  time,  which  makes  no  difference  between  a 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


235 


16th  Section. 

common  year  and  a  leap-year,  and  begins  tlie  artificial  day  at  all  hours  of  the 
natural  day,  and  in  the  third  year  after  leap-year  it  agrees  with  calendar  (or 
ordinary)  date.  Second.  In  Table  II.  of  the  Prayer-Books  (NS.  2),  the  lunar  correc¬ 
tions  (NS.  LC),  and  the  solar  corrections  (NS.  SC.)  are  applied  by  whole  days,  when 
the  proper  corrections  may  be  more  or  less  than  whole  days  ;  and  they  are  applied 
only  in  the  ceuturial  years,  taking  no  account  of  the  intermediate  variations.  By 
means  of  these  corrections  are  found  for  the  centurial  years,  the  date  of  G  N.  8, 
corresponding  with  a.d.  325,  the  year  of  the  Council  of  Nicea,  and  that  date  is 
indicated  by  the  index  number  0  to  29 — the  number  of  days  after  March  21,  on 
which  falls  GN.  3  for  the  14th  Nisan.  These  irregularities  of  NS.  SC.  and  NS. 
LC.  are  peculiar  to  the  Gregorian  Calendar. 

16-9.  The  irregularity  of  Julian  time  (16-8,  First),  and  the  following  are 
peculiar  to  the  Nicean  Cycle  (16-8.)  Thus :  The  Nicean  Cycle  assumes  that  235 
lunations  strike  the  same  date  in  19  years.  This  is  very  nearly  correct,  if  the 
years  be  Julian  years  of  365.25  days.  This  they  are  not.  The  19  calendar  years 
may  contain  4  or  5  leap-years,  and  the  terminal  year  may  be  a  leap-year  or  a 
common  year.  Then  the  next  nearest  approach  is  99  lunations,  which  are  a  little  more 
than  1-J  days  over  8  years  of  365.25  days.  But  the  cycle  counts  only  by  whole 
days,  and  to  make  the  average  correct,  sometimes  adds  one  and  sometimes  two 
days,  by  this  rule,  viz. :  In  (NS.  4),  or  table  to  find  Easter  in  the  Prayer-Books  for 
this  century,  take  any  GN.  and  its  date  as  standards.  Then  to  GN.  add  8  years 
in  a  circle  of  19  (i.  e.}  add  8  or  subtract  11),  and  if  this  produce  GN.  1  to  8,  date  it 
one  day  later;  but  if  GN.  9  to  19,  date  it  two  days  later,  until  the  date  exceed 
April  18  (the  Paschal  limit),  and  then  subtract  30  days  for  the  date  of  the  same  GN., 
and  proceed  as  at  first,  until  the  original  GN.  and  date  are  reproduced  (NB.  Scale.) 

16-10.  Lindo,  in  his  preface  to  the  Jewish  Calendar,  says :  “  The  Council  of 
Nice  ordered  that  Easter  should  not  be  held  on  the  first  day  of  the  Passover  £  ne 
videantur  Judaizare,’  but  in  1825  and  1903,  both  fall  on  the  same  day.”  This 
proves -nothing  against  the  Christian  Calendar.  The  Mosaic  or  astronomic  date 
was  the  standard  in  a.d.  325,  not  the  present  artificial  Jewish  Calendar  of  a.d. 
360  (AO.)  According  to  (AO.  Transfers)  the  date  is  postponed  one  day  later  than 
the  Mosaic  date,  if  the  Moled  Tisri  fall  on  day  i.,  iv.,  or  vi.  (16-2),  and  again  it  is 
postponed  one  day  in  two  cases  to  keep  the  year  within  the  prescribed  six  different 
lengths.  This  addition  of  one  or  of  two  days  beyond  the  Mosaic  date,  may  bring 
the  Passover  on  the  Nicean  date  of  Easter.  Also,  AO.  takes  the  wrong  moons  in 
the  years,  GN.  9,  1,  12,  and  the  preceding  Passovers  now  fall  in  the  second  Mo¬ 
saic  month.  And  all  the  Passovers  are  advancing  into  the  second  month  at  the 
rate  of  one  in  842.368  years,  and  the  whole  series  of  19  will  pass  forward  from  month 
to  month  in  each  period  of  6,505  years,  so  that  in  the  course  of  time,  the  present 
calendar  will  bring  the  Passover  in  Summer,  Autumn,  Winter,  Spring,  and  so  keep 
revolving  through  the  natural  year.  (NB.  Calendars  18-15,  16.)  , 

16-11.  The  Gregorian  Calendar  fails  the  least  of  all  the  Calendars  now  in  use. 
During  this  century  it  gives  the  Nicean  date  of  Easter  as  nearly  as  practicable 
with  the  simple  form  of  calendar  that  has  governed  the  Christian  Church  since  the 
fifth  century  (16-3),  But  (NS.  Retractions)  will  act  during  the  next  century. 
(NB.  AC.  3.26 — 1,2.)  These  are  astronomically  false,  and  contrary  to  the  Nicean 
rule.  They  are  indicated  by  the  blanks  at  April  17  and  18  in  Table  III.  of  the 
Prayer-Books.  (NB.  AC,  3.26—1,  2.) 


236 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


16th  Section* 

16-12.  The  Southern  Churchman  of  April  27th,  has  a  paper  by  “  R.  K.,”  who 
is  a  “distinguished  astronomer.”  He  concludes  thus:  “In  our  day,  nothing  is 
easier  than  to  point  out  the  first  full  moon  after  the  vernal  equinox,  and  it  would 
seem  more  consistent  with  the  dignity  of  the  Church  to  make  use  of  it,  rather  than 
to  follow  the  clumsy  devise  of  Clavius,  contrived,  in  part,  to  avoid  the  very  thing  it 
professes  to  give.” 

16- 13.  Now  :  (NB.  AC.  2.16-12)  gives  a  rule  to  find  this  date  with  astronomic 
precision.  But,  since  the  Gregorian  Calendar  preserves  the  simple  form  which  has 
governed  the  Christian  Church,  without  exception  since  a.d.  534,  this  and  other 
astronomic  rules  are  used  (in  AC.)  to  correct  a  few  errors  in  the  Gregorian  Calen¬ 
dar,  which  only  result  in  changing  the  date  of  some  of  the  index  numbers  in  Table 
II.,  and  obliterating  the  NS.  Retractions  from  Table  III.  in  the  Anglican  Prayer- 
Books,  and  corresponding  changes  in  the  Roman  Epacts. 

i 

17th  Section. 

DATE  OF  EASTER,  No.  2.  ERRORS  OF  JARVIS. 

Jarvis’  Chronological  History  of  the  Church  is  an  admirable  work  in  general, but 
has  three  errors  on  the  subject  of  Christian  Calendars,  viz.  : 

17- 1.  On  pp.  87-92,  he  gives  “  The  Calendar  of  the  Ancient  Church,  established 
by  the  Council  of  Nice.”  This,  I  think,  should  read :  “  Established  in  the  century 
next  after  the  Council  of  Nice  ”  (or  Nicea).  It  would  require  too  much  space  to 
give  the  historical  quotations,  to  show  that  the  Council  of  Nicea  simply  decided 
that  Easter  should  be  held  on  Sunday  next  after  the  Mosaic  Passover,  “  ne  cum 
Judaeis  conveniamus,”  as  says  the  Roman  Missal ;  that  during  the  Second  Temple, 
the  Jews  determined  this  date  by  actual  observation  on  the  paschal  new  moon  at 
Jerusalem  ;  that  until  the  century  after  the  Council,  this  date  was  predicted  by  the 
Egyptian  astronomers,  and  communicated  to  the  whole  Christian  world  ;  and  that 
in  the  century  after  the  Council,  this  cycle  in  Jarvis  wras  substituted  for  the  annual 
predictions.  (NB.  NC.  1  to  7.) 

17-2.  These  historical  facts  are  important  in  determining  what  was  actually  the 
Nicean  rule  to  find  Easter.  If  this  statement  by  Jarvis  be  correct,  then  was  the  old 
style  calendar  correct,  as  established  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  534),  which 
added  thirteen  days  to  the  dates  of  the  paschal  new  moons  in  this  cycle,  for  the 
dates  of  the  full  moon  of  Nisan,  “  to  find  Easter  for  ever  ”  ;  and  this  Easter  in  the 
course  of  time,  will  advance  into  Summer,  Autumn,  Winter,  and  Spring,  and  thus 
keep  revolving  through  all  the  seasons  of  the  natural  year  ;  and  in  1864,  the  Greek 
Easter,  in  accordance  with  this  calendar  (in  a  Greek  form),  fell  at  the  proper  Nicean 
date,  five  weeks  later  than  our  Easter.  But  if  the  Nicean  rule  require  that  Easter  * 
be  held  on  Sunday  next  after  the  Mosaic  date  of  the  14th  Nisan,  then  does  that 
date  become  astrgnomic,  without  restriction  by  any  artificial  calendar,  and  our 
Easter  in  1864  was  in  precise  accordance  with  the  Nicean  rule,  while  the  Greek 
Easter  was  five  weeks  too  late ;  and  this  error  will  keep  on  increasing.  (NB.  Cal¬ 
endars  18-11,  12.) 

17-3.  The  Churchman' s  Calendar  of  1866,  1867,  and  1868,  repeats  the  statement 
by  Dr.  Hill  of  the  position  of  Ampliilochios,  Archbishop  of  Corinth,  that  “  The 
Greeks  may  admit  the  Gregorian  Calendar,  but  never  the  Latin  rule  of  Easter,  as 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


237 


17th  Section. 

the  ordinance  of  the  Council  must  he  held  superior  to  mere  scientific  adjustment.” 
This  appears  to  contradict  itself,  since  the  Latin  rule  of  Easter  is  nothing  more  than 
the  Gregorian  Calendar.  And  the  Latin  rule  of  Easter  accords  with  the  “  ordinance 
of  the  Council,”  while  the  Greeks  follow  a  “  mere  scientific  adjustment,”  that  agreed 
with  the  Nicean  rule  in  early  days,  but  is  going  away  from  it  at  present,  (xix.  16.) 

17-4.  On  pp.  94,95,  Jarvis  says  :  “The  precession  of  the  equinoxes  had  in  the 
interval  of  time  shifted  the  cardinal  points  in  the  zodiac,  so  that  the  winter  solstice 
had  passed  from  the  25th  to  the  21st  of  December,  and  the  vernal  equinox  from  the 
25th  to  the  21st  of  March.” 

17-5.  Mow,  the  precession  of  the  equinoxes  has  no  connection  with  this  subject; 
and  Seabury  makes  the  same  mistake.  Calendar  dates  depend  exclusively  upon  the 
times  occupied  by  the  revolutions  of  the  earth  and  of  the  moon.  If  there  were  no 
fixed  stars,  our  calendar  would  be  the  same,  but  we  would  not  be  aware  of  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  the  precession  of  the  equinoxes.  It  is  the  very  small  distance  that,  in 
each  year,  the  sun  is  westward  from  its  former  position  among  the  stars  when  it 
reaches  the  equator.  It  is  caused  by  the  slow  revolution  of  the  pole  of  the  earth 
around  the  pole  of  the  ecliptic,  while  spinning  rapidly  in  its  daily  revolutions  and 
revolving  with  comparative  rapidity  in  the  zodiac;  analogous  to  the  slow  revolution 
of  the  axis  of  top  while  spinning  rapidly  on  its  pin.  This  very  slow  motion  of  the 
pole  of  the  earth  among  the  fixed  stars  causes  one  star  after  another  to  become  the 
“North  Star”  (and  by  this  they  determine  the  dates  of  the  Pyramids),  until,  in 
about  25,000  years,  it  will  make  the  complete  circuit  and  return  to  the  same  point, 
“and  the  great  clock  of  eternity  will  strike  One  !”  (Mitchell.) 

17-6.  The  actual  cause  of  this  recession  was  the  error  in  the  Julian  Calendar, 
making  the  year  average  365.25  days  in  place  of  365.242,216,  as  assumed  in  the 
Greenwich  Nautical  Almanac  since  1865,  or  0.007,784  day  too  long,  making  a 
recession  of  solar  dates  of  one  day  in  128  years  (NB.  AC.  2-2.) 

17-7.  On  p.  95,  Jarvis,  in  speaking  of  the  Council  of  Nice  in  a.d.  325,  says: 

“They,  found  the . new  moon . in  the  year  of  their  session  fell 

on  the  23d  March.  They  made  it,  therefore,  the  beginning  of  a  new  cycle  of  nine¬ 
teen  years,  and  consequently  marked  it  with  the  Golden  Number  one.  It  is  possible 
that,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  the  Julian  Calendar,  the  year  of  their  session  was 
the  third  of  the  Metonic  Cycle,”  etc. 

17-8.  Now,  by  astronomic  calculation,  this  moon  in  a.d.  325  di(l  not  fall  on 
March  23,  but  on  March  31,  and  this  in  the  Nicean  Cycle  (Jarvis,  p.  88)  is  marked 
III.  Also,  by  astronomic  calculation  and  by  history,  the  new  moon  fell  on  January 
1,  b.c.  45,  on  the  introduction  of  the  Julian  Calendar,  and  January  1  is  marked  I.  in 
this  cycle  (Jarvis  p.  87.)  This  makes  the  year  b.c.  45  to  be  Golden  Number  I  of 
the  Roman  Cycle,  and  that  agrees  with  history;  and  that  makes  a.d.  325  =  IN, 
which  in  this  cycle  gives  new  moon  at  April  1  (p.  88),  one  day  later  than  III  for  the 
same  year  at  March  31  in  the  Nicean  Cycle.  And  in  Julian  time,  the  actual  moon 
recedes  one  day  in  308  years  (NB.  AC.  4,  5,  16.) 

17-9.  Consequently,  these  prove  that,  when  this  Nicean  Cycle  was  constructed, 
they  changed  the  basic  year,  so  that  a.d.  325  became  III  in  place  of  IX  in  the 
Roman  Cycle,  and  subtracted  one  day  from  the  date  of  the  moon  in  that  cycle,  to 
allow  for  the  actual  recession  since  B.c.  45,  at  the  rate  of  one  day  in  308  years.  Or, 
more  likely,  the  Egyptian  astronomers  presented  an  independent  cycle  that  was 


238 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


17th  Section. 

astronomically  correct  at  that  date,  since  in  other  respects  there  is  not  a  precise 
agreement. 

17-10.  The  year  a.d.  325  being  III  in  the  Nicean  Cycle,  makes  B.c.  1  =  1.  I 
can  find  no  other  prominent  date  to  account  for  a.d.  325  being  III,  and  suppose 
that  b.c.  1  was  chosen  as  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  lunar  c.ycle,  because  that 
was  the  first  year  in  which  the  Julian  Calendar  was  restored  to  the  original  inten¬ 
tion,  after  the  confusion  arising  from  having  eleven  bissextiles  in  thirty-three 
years.  And  this  confusion,  as  I  suppose,  arose  from  the  vicious  Roman  mode  of 
counting  both  extremes;  and  when  Sosigenes  (the  Egyptian  astronomer  who  con¬ 
structed  the  Julian  Calendar)  directed  that  b.c.  45,  and  every  fourth  year 
thereafter,  should  be  a  bissextile,  the  Roman  priests  understood  it  in  a  Roman 
sense,  and  counted  as  the  “  fourth  ”  what  we  count  as  the  third.  Julius  Caesar  had 
been  murdered;  Sosigenes  had  disappeared ;  the  priests  appear  to  have  been  very 
ignorant,  from  this  and  their  previous  calendar  (NB.  AU. — ) 

17- 11.  This  basic  year  of  the  Nicean  Cycle,  making  a.d.  325  =  III,  and  b  c. 
1=1,  has  been  followed  by  all  the  numerous  Christian  cycles  to  the  present  day 
(excepting  by  the  Greek  Church);  and  that  is  the  signification  of  the  rule  in  the 
Prayer-Book:  “To  find  the  Golden  Number  or  Prime,  add  one  to  the  year  of  our 
Lord,  and  then  divide  by  nineteen,”  etc.  But  in  these  early  times  the  years  B.c.  45, 
B.c.  1,  and  a.d.  325,  were  not  known  by  these  numbers,  and  were  counted  from  the 
building  of  Rome  (A.  U.  C.)  And  Golden  Number  III  corresponding  with  the  year 
of  the  Council  of  Nicea,  a.d.  325,  is  the  standard  year  of  the  cycle,  to  which  all 
others  are  subordinate  in  tables  II  and  III  in  the  Prayer-Book,  as  determined  in 
1752  on  the  reformation  of  the  English  Calendar.  Also  in  the  Roman  Missal,  the 
Epact  *  (  =  0)  is  in  all  cases  placed  at  the  same  date  as  Golden  Number  III  in  the 
Nicean  Cycle,  viz.  :  January  1,  31,  March  1,  31,  April  29,  May  29,  June  27,  July  27, 
August  25,  September  24,  October  23,  November  22,  December  21  (AM.  2;  NS.  9  ; 
NB.  NS.  2-16;  NB,  GND.  and  Epacts.  Also  see  Appendix  H,  Journal  of  the 
Reformed  Episcopal  Church  in  1874.) 

18th  Section. 

DATE  OF  EASTER,  No.  3.  ERRORS  OF  SEABURY. 

18- 1.  “The  Theory  and  Use  of  the  Church  Calendar,”  by  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Seabury,  D.D.  (New  York,  1872),  is  full  of  errors.  He  finishes,  “  A o%a  rw  Gew.” 

18-2.  This  we  might  reasonably  expect  from  the  following  quotations,  on  the 
pages  referred  to,  viz.  : — p.  xii  he  explains  for  the  information  of  “  laymen”;  p.  xi, 
“A  traditionary  system  which  disclaims  demonstration”;  p.  7,  “Neither  is  it 
necessary  for  one  to  be  either  an  astronomer  or  a  mathematician  ”  ;  p.  117,  “  Science 
must  come  down  from  her  throne,  and  condescend  to  accept  the  cycles  which  the 
custodians  of  the  church  have  treasured  up  ”;  p.  118,  “  Must  be  kept  wholly  out  of 
the  domain  of  demonstrative  science  ” ;  p.  x,  “  I  know  of  no  treatise  especially 
devoted  to  it  ”;  p.  xi,  “  a  rule  that  may  indeed  be  verified  by  experiment,  but  the 
reasons  of  which  no  author  that  I  have  seen  has  been  at  the  pains  to  unfold.” 

With  these  remarks,  he  undertakes  to  demonstrate  a  system  that  is  purely 
“  astronomic  and  mathematical,”  which  cost  the  Council  of  Gregorian  astronomers 
ten  years’  study,  and  may  be  stated  in  these  words  : 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


239 


18th  Section. 

18-3.  Proposition.  To  frame  a  calendar  which,  in  the  Nicean  form  of  averag¬ 
ing,  shall  follow  the  actual  movements  of  the  sun  and  moon  so  closely  that  it  may 
represent  the  Nicean  Rule,  and  bring  Easter  on  the  Sunday  next  after  the  four¬ 
teenth  day  of  the  actual  moon  that  shall  fall  on  or  next  after  the  date  of  the  actual 
vernal  equinox,  counting  the  time  from  the  Mosaic  visible  new  moon,  and 
from  Jerusalem  as  the  prime  meridian  (NB.  Scale;  xix.  16.) 

18-4.  For  information  on  this  subject,  see  the  authors  referred  to  under  NB. 
NS.,  in  the  Journal  of  the  Second  Council  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  in 
1874,  Appendix  H,  in  which  the  Anglican  and  Roman  forms  of  the  Gregorian 
Calendar  are  both  given.  Then  compare  that  with  the  following : 

18-5.  Dr.  Seabury  (p.  xiv)  desires  to  ‘‘recast”  the  Anglican  Calendar,  and  to 
adopt  the  Roman  mode  of  reaching  the  same  result  precisely,  objecting  to  “  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Hanoverian  method,  which  has  been  fastened  upon  us  in  our 
English  and  American  Prayer-Books  ”  (pp.  123,  194,  xiv.  89, 189,  200,  211) ;  i  e.,  he 
calls  the  use  of  Golden  Numbers,  in  the  place  of  the  Roman  Epacts,  “  Hanoverian.” 
But  this  was  begun  by  Meton,  B.c.  432,  and  Golden  Numbers  have  been  used 
directly  by  all  Christians  since  the  Fifth  century,  until  in  1582  the  Church  of 
Rome  substituted  Epacts.  The  Greeks  still  use  Golden  Numbers;  and  the  Church 
of  Rome  uses  the  same  Golden  Numbers  as  the  Anglicans,  in  order  to  find  the 
Epacts  (xix.  10;  NS.  1  to  7*  AM.  3;  OS.  2;  NS.  12.)  (xix.  19  Two.) 

18-6.  Again  (pp.  193, 194),  “As  if  the  Church,  wearied  of  God’s  own  ordinance 
for  the  regulation  of  her  ancient  solemnities,  should  choose  some  strange  light, 
which  should  shine,  like  the  Dog  Star,  but  for  one  month  in  the  year. . .  .In  no 
other  age. . .  .could  the  heirloom  of  a  thousand  years  be  torn  from  her  without  a 
protest’’  ;  %.  e.,  using  only  the  nineteen  full  moons  of  the  Paschal  month,  omitting 
all  others  of  the  235  lunations  in  nineteen  years. 

18-7.  Now,  it  was  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  in  A.D.  534,  at  the  recommendation 
of  Dionysius  Exiguus,  in  a.jd.  525  (Seabury,  p.  78),  which  made  this  change;  and 
in  place  of  adding,  as  previously,  thirteen  days  to  the  dates  of  the  Paschal  new 
moons  in  the  Nicean  Calendar  each  time  that  the  date  of  Easter  was  desired,  at 
once  added  thirteen  days  to  the  nineteen  dates  for  the  Paschal  full  moons  only,  and 
omitted  all  the  other  moons  in  the  year.  This  is  the  old  style  calendar,  and  is  now 
used  by  the  Greeks  in  a  Greek  dress.  And  our  table,  in  like  manner,  has  only  the 
Paschal  full  moons.  There  is  no  known  table  that  gives  the  whole  235  full  moons 
in  the  cycle,  but  several,  including  the  Greek  cycle,  which  give  the  235  new  moons 
in  the  cycle,  and  these  are  only  to  answer  imperfectly,  the  same  civil  purpose 
as  a  modern  almanac ;  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  Nicean  cycle,  these  cycles  of 
new  moons  could  not,  without  correction,  be  used  for  ecclesiastical  purposes,  since 
they  do  not  agree  with  the  old  style  table  for  full  moons,  that  being  fixed  “  forever,” 
while  these  keep  following  the  recession  of  the  astronomic  moon,  at  the  rate  of  one 
day  in  308  Julian  years,  and  show  their  date  of  construction  by  the  date  assigned 
to  new  moon.  The  system  of  Roman  Epacts  for  each  of  the  365  days  in  a  Julian 
year  is  an  improvement  ou  these  older  tables  of  new  moons,  because,  in  place  of 
changing  the  whole  table,  it  is  only  necessary  to  determine  which  Epact  is  to  be 
used.  And  by  means  of  these  Epacts  and  the  Sunday  Letters  the  Church  of  Rome 
reaches  the  same  result  as  the  Anglicans  by  their  method  of  Golden  Numbers.  As 
to  the  “  Dog  Star,”  that  shines  for  the  whole  year,  but  for  about  a  month  is  overpow- 


240 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


18tli  Section. 

erecl  by  the  light  of  the  sun.  As  to  “  God’s  own  ordinance,”  and  “  strange  light  ’’ 
[?]  Grcecum  est,  non  leqitur  (xix.  1G-5 ;  NB.  Calendars  18-11,  12;  AM.  3  ;  OS. 
2  ;  NS.  4;  NB.  GND.  3.  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  NS.  7,  12.) 

18-8.  Again  (pp.  197,  198,  2111,  “  Why  direct  us  to  Easter  by  Golden  Numbers, 
with  complicated  tables  for  changing  them  century  after  century,  instead  of  direct¬ 
ing  us  to  find  Easter  by  means  of  the  simple  and  immutable  system  of  Epacts?” 
And  (p.  206),  “  That  wilderness  of  figures  which  constitute  the  Second  and  Third  of 
our  General  Tables,”  (NS.  2,  3.) 

18-9.  Now,  this  “wilderness  of  figures”  is  very  simple  when  understood,  and 
a  better  condensation  than  can  be  found  elsewhere.  These  Tables  II  and  III  con¬ 
tain  the  Gregorian  system  in  precise  accordance  with  the  Roman  Epacts.  They 
give  the  whole  system  in  full,  “  changing  [the  dates]  century  after  century,”  down 
to  the  year  8500,  and  repeat ;  while  the  Roman  Missal  takes  fifty-two  lines  to  bring 
the  Epacts,  which  change  the  same  dates,  “  century  after  century,”  down  to  A. D. 
1900  only  ;  which  fifty-two  lines  in  the  Missal  are  represented  by  the  index  num¬ 
bers  “  0  ”  and  “  1  ”  opposite  to  1600,  1700,  and  1 800  in  Table  II.  And  in  place  of  the 
remaining  index  numbers  2  to  30,  in  Table  II,  the  Missal  says,  “  de  qua  re  plura 
inveniesin  libro  novae  rationis  restituendi  Kalendarii  Romani,”  without  giving  the 
name  of  this  “  book.”  But  the  new  column  of  Epacts  added  to  the  Anglican  Table 
III  carries  the  Epacts  down  to  a.d.  8500  for  use  in  tlie  Roman  mode.  That  they 
have  not  (NB.  NS.  Construction  and  Explanation  of  Table  II  and  III  ;  NB. 
GND.  9.) 

18-10.  And  Dr.  Seabury  evidently  does  not  understand  that  there  are  two 
kinds  of  Epacts,  the  one  “simple  and  immutable,”  always  at  the  same  dates,  like 
the  Sunday  Letters  ;  the  other  depending  on  the  Golden  Number,  and  changing 
instantly  with  the  date  of  the  Golden  Number,  which  is  used  by  the  Roman  Church 
as  well  as  by  the  Anglican,  and  this  determines  which  of  the  permanent  Epacts  is 
to  be  used,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Dominical  determines  which  of  the  Sunday 
Letters  is  to  be  used.  The  Anglicans  followed  the  Romans  even  in  the  “  Retrac¬ 
tions,”  which  are  astronomically  false  and  contradict  the  Nicean  Rule,  and  will 
operate  after  a.d.  1900.  (NB.  GND.  8  ;  NS.  12,  7  ;  26  ;  NB.  AC.  3.26—1,  2.) 

18-11.  Again  (pp.  78,  67,  71,  72,  90),  “  The  Alexandrian  Canon  was  founded  on 
the  Lunar  Cycle  of  Meton  (reduced  from  6940  to  6939  days  18  hours),”  and  “  drawn 
off  with  difficulty  from  the  use  of  the  Jewish  Cycle  of  84  years.” 

18-12.  Now,  this  Alexandrian  Canon,  or  Old  Style  Calendar  (OS.  2),  and  the 
Cycle  of  Meton  (OE),  and  the  present  Jewish  Cycle  (AO.),  all  count  by  19  years, 
but  all  are  fundamentally  different.  Neither  is  a  copy  of  the  other.  Neither  can 
be  modified  into  the  other.  (NB.  NS.  33.) 

18-13.  A  gain  (p.  19),  “  The  Hebrews,. ...  in  common  with  most  Ancient  nations, 
. . .  .began  the  civil  year,  which  was  a  solar  year  of  365  days,  at  the  autumnal  equi¬ 
nox,”  and  (p.  14)  “  365  days  is  still  assumed  to  be  the  length  of  the  year  in  the 
Calendar  of  the  Church,  and  of  all  civilized  nations.” 

18-14.  Now  the  Calendar  year  of  Christians  is  the  Julian  year  of  365£  days,  and 
h  istorgives  no  account  of  any  nation  that  counted  uniformly  365  days  in  the  year, 
excepting  the  ancient  Egyptians,  with  their  Canicular  year,  which  was  neither 
solar  nor  lunar,  and  which  appears  to  have  been  partially  used  by  the  Jews  wThen 
they  left  Egypt  ;  but  at  present  they  use  the  Babylonian  Calendar,  and  now  have 
years  of  six  different  lengths,  but  neither  of  them  365  days.  (NB.  AO.  17, 18.) 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


241 


18tli  Section. 

18-15.  Again  (p.  225),  “  Ten  days  which  were  cancelled  in  1582,  on  account  of 
the  precession  of  the  equinoxes.”  This  should  be  “  on  account  of  the  error  in  the 
Julian  Calendar,’’  as  explained  when  Jarvis  makes  the  same  mistake,  (xix. 
17-4,  5,  6.) 


19th  Section. 

SUCCESSION  IN  THE  R.  E.  C. 

Different  families  of  the  one  Apostolic  Catholic  Church,  in  different  countries, 
trace  their  descent  from  their  ecclesiastical  ancestors,  w’hom  they  reverence;  as  the 
Lutherans  and  the  German  Reformed  in  Germany;  the  Dutch  in  Holland;  and  the 
Presbyterians  in  France,  Switzerland,  and  Scotland;  and  their  descendants  in 
other  countries.  In  like  manner  we  trace  the  descent  of  the  R.  E.  C.  from  the 
English  Reformers. 

It  is  merely  a  local  incident,  that  the  Reformers  in  England  retained  the 
Episcopal  form;  and  such  is  now  the  legal  position  of  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land,  (xviii.  June  15,  Ch.)  The  Declaration  of  Principles  of  the  R.  E.  C. 
says :  “  II.  This  Church  recognizes  and  adheres  to  Episcopacy,  not  as  of  divine 
right,  but  as  a  very  ancient  and  desirable  form  of  church  polity.”  And,  “IV.  This 
Church  condemns  and  rejects  the  following  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines,  as 
contrary  to  God’s  Word :  First.  That  the  Church  of  Christ  exists  only  in  one 
order  or  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity,”  (xi.  2.) 

Hence  the  R.  E.  C.  rejects  the  dogma  of  Apostolic  Succession,  as  quoted 
(iii.  Nov.  11,  1874,  Ch.  Jo. ;  Dec.  30,  1874,  High  Church);  and  regards  it  of  no 
practical  importance  to  determine  the  historical  truth,  between  the  contradictory 
assertions  of  Dr.  Hook,  who  says :  “There  is  not  a  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  who 
cannot,  if  he  please,  trace  his  descent  from  Peter  and  Paul  ” ;  and  of  Archbishop 
Whately,  who  says :  “  There  is  not  a  minister  in  Christendom,  who  is  able,  with 
any  approach  to  certainty,  to  trace  his  own  succession  to  any  of  the  Apostles 
whatever.” 

Two  Rival  Episcopal  Churches  in  Great  Britain. 

The  history  of  the  Church  of  England  is  traced  out  (xii.  12-24.)  That  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland  is  thus  given  in  Chambers’  Encyclopedia : 

The  early  Scotch  Church  differed  slightly  from  other  western  Churches,  but 
gradually  they  assimilated  before  the  end  of  the  12th  century.  But  down  to  the 
15th  century  they  had  no  metropolitan.  They  were  subject  to  Rome,  who,  in 
1492,  raised  Glasgow  as  metropolitan.  In  1406,  1407,  1433,  reformers  were  burned. 
In  1525  Lutheran  books  prohibited.  In  1528  Patrick  Hamilton  was  burned.  In 
1546  began  a  deadly  struggle.  In  1559  the  Reformers  defied  the  Regent,  and  in 
1560  had  the  ascendancy  and  cut  loose  from  the  Pope.  They  then  modelled  their 
Church  after  that  at  Geneva.  Others  restored  Episcopacy,  with  “  Protestant 
Bishops  set  apart  for  that  office  by  their  brethren  of  the  ministry.”  These  wrere 
supported  by  the  Sovereign.  But  the  Presbyterians  gained  the  ascendancy,  and 
made  the  State  subordinate  to  the  Church,  but  not  precisely  in  the  Presbyterian 
form.  In  1610  Episcopacy  was  restored  by  the  consecration  of  three  Scottish  prel¬ 
ates  by  four  English  Bishops,  in  London.  Then  followed  strife.  In  1689, 
political  causes  ruined  Episcopacy.  In  1702  Presbyterianism  was  established  by 


242 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


1 9tli  Section. 

Act  of  Parliament.  The  Toleration  Act  of  1712  protected  the  Episcopalians,  but 
on  the  death  of  Queen  Anne  they  were  involved  in  the  attempt  to  overthrow  the 
Hanoverian  dynasty,  and  this  made  the  name  of  Episcopalian  and  Jacobite  to  be 
synonymous.  In  1745  some  intolerant  acts  of  Parliament  were  passed  against  the 
Episcopalians,  “and  it  was  not  till  1792  that  the  Episcopalians,  who,  from  the 
death  of  Prince  Charles,  had  acknowledged  the  reigning  dynasty,  were  relieved 
from  the  penal  laws.” 

Two  Rival  Episcopal  Churches  in  America. 

In  1784  Bishop  Seabury,  of  Connecticut,  was  consecrated  by  the  Bishops  of  the 
Scotch  Church,  descended  from  the  Non- Jurors.  The  Journals  of  the  General 
Conventions  of  1785-6  (vi.)  show  that  he  and  his  diocese  kept  aloof  and  formed  one 
Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut,  and  probably  other  neighboring  States.  Those 
who  were  present  at  those  Conventions  applied  to  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  of 
England  for  Episcopal  ordination.  A  resolution  was  offered,  that  no  one  now  in 
this  country  (i.  e.,  Seabury)  be  acknowledged  to  be  a  Bishop.  This  was  evaded  by 
the  operation  of  the  Previous  Question.  Then  a  vote  was  carried,  that  during  the 
negotiation  for  Orders  from  Canterbury,  no  Orders  conferred  by  any  one  now  in 
this  country  be  recognized,  thus  prudently  keeping  in  reserve  the  Scotch  Orders, 
in  case  the  Church  of  England  should  refuse.  The  latter  consented  to  confer  the 
“  Episcopal  Character,”  and  did  so  upon  Bishops  White  and  Provoost  on  February 
4,  1787,  on  the  basis  of  the  Prayer-Book  of  1785,  which  had  passed  the  inspection 
of  two  Archbishops  and  thirteen  Bishops.  These  formed  a  second  Episcopal 
Church  south  of  Connecticut,  analogous  to  the  Church  from  which  they  sprung, 
south  of  Scotland.  Then  on  Sept.  19,  1790,  the  Rev.  James  Madison,  of  Virginia, 
was  consecrated  Bishop  by  the  English  Bishops.  In  1789  these  two  rival  churches 
coalesced  and  formed  the  present  P.  E.  C.,  and,  rejecting  the  Prayer-Book  of  1785, 
established  the  present  Prayer-Book,  with  some  extracts  from  that  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland.  Hence,  the  succession  in  the  P.  E.  C.  is  a  mixture  of  that  from 
Canterbury  with  that  from  the  Scotch  Non-Jurors,  (xix.  18-5.) 

Succession  in  the  R.  E.  C. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  R.  E.  C.  is  substantially  a  separate  organization  of 
the  Evangelicals  of  the  P.  E.  C.  and  Church  of  England,  as  far  as  relates  to  the 
principles  of  the  R.  E.  C.  (vi.  ;  ix.  ;  x.  ;  xi.  ;  xvi. ;  xix.  2.) 

We  now  come  to  the  Personal  Succession  in  the  R.  E.  C. : 

(1.)  Bishop  Cummins.  The  Journal  of  the  General  Convention  of  the  P.  E. 
C.  of  1868,  page  552,  has  this  record  : 

“  LXXXI. — Bishop  Cummins — In  the  name  of  God,  Amen. — To  all  the  faithful 
in  Christ  Jesus  throughout  the  world ,  greeting ; — Be  it  known  unto  you,  that  we, 
John  Henry  Hopkins,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  by  the  grace  of  God,  Bishop  of  Vermont,  and 
Presiding  Bishop;  B.  B.  Smith,  D.D.,  by  the  grace  of  God,  Bishop  of  Kentucky; 
Henry  W.  Lee,  D.D.,  by  the  grace  of  God,  Bishop  of  Iowa;  J.  C.  Talbot,  D.D,,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  Assistant  Bishop  of  Indiana  ;  Charles  Todd  Quintard,  D.D., 
by  the  grace  of  God,  Bishop  of  Tennessee;  Robert  H.  Clarkson,  D.D.,  Missionary 
Bishop  of  Nebraska;  and  John  B.  Kerfoot,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Pittsburg,  under  the 
protection  of  Almighty  God,  in  Christ  Church,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  on  the 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


243 


19th  Section. 

fifteenth  day  of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  sixty-six  (I860),  did  then  and  there,  in  the  presence  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of 
the  Diocese  of  Kentucky,  according  to  the  due  and  prescribed  order  of  the  Protest¬ 
ant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  in  conformity  with  the 
Canons  thereof,  consecrate  our  beloved  in  Christ  the  Rev.  George  David  Cummins, 
D.D.,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Chicago,  of  whose  sufficiency  in  good  learning 
soundness  in  the  faith,  and  purity  of  manners,  we  were  fully  ascertained,  into  the 
office  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Church  of  God,  he  having  been  duly  elected  Assistant 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky.  Given  under  our  hands  and  seals  in  this  said 
city  of  Louisville,  in  the  diocese  of  Kentucky,  the  fifteenth  day  of  November,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-six  (1866) :  John  H. 
Hopkins,  Presiding  Bishop  ;  [Seal]— B.  B.  Smith,  Bishop  of  Kentucky;  [Seal]  — 
Henry  W.  Lee,  Bishop  of  Iowa  ;  [Seal] — Jos.  C.  Taleot,  Bishop  of  Indiana, 
Coadjutor  ;  [Seal] — Chas.  Todd  Quintard,  Bishop  of  Tennessee  ;  [Seal]  —Robert 
H.  Clarkson,  Missionary  Bishop  of  Nebraska;  [Seal] — John  B.  Kerfoot 
Bishop  of  Pittsburgh  ;  [Seal]. 

Also,  the  Churchman's  Calendar,  of  the  same  year  as  this  Journal  (1868),  has  the 
following  (p.  154),  which  is  understood  to  be  by  Bishop  Coxe,  viz.  :  “  2  Kentucky 
....  Assistant  Bishop,  with  the  right  of  Succession — Rt.  Rev.  George  David 
Cummins,  D.D.  He  was  born  in  the  State  of  Delaware,  Dec.  11,  1822  ;  educated  at 
Dickinson  Coll.,  Pa.,  graduating  in  1841  ;  ordained  Deacon  by  Bp.  Lee,  of  Dela¬ 
ware,  in  Oct.,  1845,  and  Priest,  by  the  same  prelate,  in  July,  1847  ;  received  the 
degree  of  D.D.  from  Princeton  Coll,  in  1856.  His  first  parish  was  Christ  Church, 
Norfolk,  Va. ;  the  next  St.  James’  Church,  Richmond,  Ya. ;  the  next,  Trinity 
Church,  Washington,  D.  C. ;  the  next,  St.  Peter’s  Church,  Baltimore,  Md. ;  the  last, 
Trinity  Church,  Chicago,  Ill.  While  in  charge  of  this  parish  he  was  elected 
Assistant  Bishop  of  Kentucky;  consecrated  in  Christ  Church,  Louisville”  [etc.,  as 
above  from  the  Journal;  then  continues  as  to  the  Diocese].  “  Population,  1,155,713 
. . .  .Clergy  31,  Parishes  37,  Confirmed,  541  ”  (xiii.  15.) 

(2.)  Bishop  Charles  Edward  Cheney,  D.D.,  graduated  A.B.  at  Hobart  College,  Ge¬ 
neva,  New  York,  and  gave  the  “  Philosophical  Oration,”  the  second  honor  of  the 
class  of  July  16,  1857;  entered  the  middle  class  of  the  Virginia  Theological  Semi¬ 
nary,  in  Oct.,  1857,  and  remained  there  till  Nov.,  1858,  when  called  as  assistant  minis¬ 
ter  of  St.  Luke’s  Church,  Rochester,  where  he  continued  his  theological  studies,  and  did 
not  regularly  graduate  from  the  Seminary,  but  was  always  named  in  the  catalogues 
as  an  Alumnus.  He  was  ordained  Deacon  by  Bishop  De  Lancey  in  Trinity  Church, 
Utica,  N.  Y.,  on  Nov.  21, 1858,  and  at  once  acted  as  assistant  of  Rev.  Dr.  Benjamin 
Watson  (now  rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Atonement,  Philadelphia),  and  remained 
in  that  position  till  Aug.  1, 1859,  when  he  took  charge  of  St.  Paul’s  Church,  Havana, 
New  York,  till  1860.  Then,  on  March  4th,  he  was  ordained  Presbyter  by  Bishop 
De  Lancey,  in  Christ  Church,  Rochester,  the  sermon  being  preached  by  Rev.  Dr. 
William  Ashley  ;  that  clergyman,  and  Rev.  Mr.  (now  Bishop)  Neely,  and  some 
others,  uniting  in  laying  on  of  hands.  A  week  later  (March  11th),  he  took  charge 
of  Christ  Church,  Chicago,  where  he  has  now  been  for  more  than  16  years.  The 
degree  of  D.D.  was  conferred  by  Iowa  College,  a  Congregational  institution,  after 
Bishop  Whitehouse  had  declared  him  “Degraded  from  the  ministry  of  the  Church 
of  God.”  (xiii.  13  ;  xi.  26.) 


244 


CIIAPTER  XIX. 


19th  Section. 

(3.)  Bishop  William  B.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  graduated  A.B.  at  La  Grange  College, 
North  Alabama,  and  received  the  degree  of  D.D.  from  Bishop  Mcl’lvaine,  when  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Gambier;  was  ordained  Deacon  and  Presbyter 
by  Bishop  Leonidas  Polk,  of  Louisiana,  of  the  P.  E.  C.  ;  was  consecrated  Bishop  in 
the  R.  E.  C.  in  the  2d  R.  E.  C.  at  Philadelphia,  on  Feb.  24,  1876.  The  Consecra- 
tors  were  Bishops  Cummins  and  Chenej"  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  Bishop  Simpson  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Drs.  Leacock,  Latane,  and  J.  Howard  Smith  of  the 
R.  E.  C.,  and  Drs.  Beadle  and  Blackwood  of  the  Presbyterian  Church;  also,  Rev. 
Mason  Gallagher  and  William  T.  Sabine,  took  part  in  the  service.  (See  Refer¬ 
ences  si.  26;  xvii.  May  12-18,  1875  ;  June  16— Sept.  22,  1875  ;  Jan.  1,  1876  ;  Feb. 
25  ;  March  1,  Ch.  U. ;  do.;  Consec. ;  Conf. ;  Mar.  8,  Lent.) 

(4.)  Bishop-Elect,  Bev.  Edward  Bridge,  B.A  ,  Cantab  : — Matriculated  at  Cam¬ 
bridge,  England,  October,  1844  ;  kept  all  the  terms  and  took  his  degree  of  B.A.  in 
January,  1848,  standing  third  class  in  mathematical  honors  ;  was  Gisborne  scholar 
of  his  college  (St.  Peter’s) ;  ordained  Deacon  at  Norwich  by  Bishop  of  Norwich 
(Stanley),  in  February,  1848  ;  Assistant  Curate  of  North  Walsham  from  Feb.,  1848, 
to  Feb.,  1851,  and  Second  Master  of  the  Grammar  School  there  during  the  same 
period  ;  passed  voluntary  theological  examination  at  Cambridge  in  the  autumn  of 
1849  (or  1848) ;  was  ordained,  shortly  after,  “  Priest  ”  at  Norwich,  by  Bishop  of  Nor¬ 
wich  (Hind);  appointed  Assistant  Curate  of  West  Ham,  near  London,  in  Feb.,  1851; 
and  licensed,  shortly  after,  to  the  incumbency  of  Stratford  Marsh  (district  parish),  in 
West  Ham  ;  appointed  by  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  to  Victoria  District  Church 
(Christ  Church),  V.  I.,  in  1854.  This  was  the  first  church  in  Vancouver’s  Island  ;  it 
was  completed  in  August,  1855,  at  which  time  he  commenced  his  labors  in  it,  and 
continued  in  the  same  till  October,  1874.  lie  was  made  Dean  in  December,  1865, 
the  Church  having  been  made  the  Cathedral  just  before.  Bishop  Scott  (P.  E. 
Bishop  of  Oregon)  held  the  first  confirmation  in  the  church,  before  the  arrival  of 
the  Anglican  Bishop  Hills  (Jan.  1860),  21  candidates.  The  exodus  of  Christ  Church 
congregation  from  the  Church  of  England,  and  his  appointment  as  their  pastor, 
was  on  Nov.  1,  1874.  (i.  Nov.  4,  Dec.  9,  Dec.  16,  1874  ;  Jan.  27,  Feb.  17,  1875  ; 

xvii.  April  21,  May  5,  May  12-18,  June  9,  Sept.  22,  1875  ;  Feb.  2,  9,  March  1,  1876; 
ii.  Jan.  27,  1875.) 

(5.)  Bev.  James  A.  Latane  was  elected  Bishop  (xvii.  May  12-18,  1875),  and  de¬ 
clined.  The  details  of  his  early  history  are  not  at  hand.  His  position  in  the  P.  E. 
C.  is  shown  (iii.  Jan.  12,  29,  1874).  He  is  probably  the  one  referred  to  by  Rev.  Dr. 
Andrews  of  Va.  as  “  One  of  the  greatest  minds  in  the  country,”  etc.  (iii.  Oct.  29. 
1S74,  Infant.) 

(6.)  Bev.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  A.M.,  College  of  New  Jersey,  graduated  at  the 
Theological  Seminary  of  Virginia  ;  ordained  Deacon  by  Bishop  Alfred  Lee,  of  Dela¬ 
ware,  Nov.  28,  1858,  and  Presbyter  by  the  same  Bishop,  Dec.  7,  1859  ;  Assistant 
Minister  of  St.  Andrews,  Wilmington,  Del.,  1858-9  ;  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Do¬ 
ver,  Del  ,  1859-60 ;  Rector  of  St.  John’s  Church,  Passaic,  N.  J.,  1860-69  ;  preached 
the  Convention  sermon  1866  ;  member  of  the  Standing  Committee  for  several  years  . 
joined  the  Reformed  (Dutch)  Church  in  1869;  stated  clerk  and  examiner  in  the 
original  languages  of  Holy  Scriptures  in  Classis  of  Paramus  1870-73  ;  member  of 
General  Synod  of  Ref.  Dutch  Ch.  in  1871  and  1873 ;  dismissed  to  the  R.  E.  C.  in 
1873.  (See  references  xi.  26.) 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


245 


19  th  Section. 

(7.)  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher  was  educated  in  Columbia  College  Grammar 
School,  New  York,  and  Rev.  Dr.  Reuben  Sherwood’s  Boarding  School  at  Norwalk, 
Conn.,  and  then  in  Rev.  Dr.  Muhlenberg’s  Flushing  Institute  ;  graduated  in  1840 
at  Hobart  (then  Geneva)  College,  and  thence  ireceived  the  degree  of  A.M.;  passed 
three  years  at  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  and  thence  graduated ;  was 
ordained  Deacon  at  Waterloo,  N.  Y.,  July  15,  1844,  by  Bishop  De  Lancey ;  and 
Presbyter  on  November  12,  1845,  at  Geneva,  N.  Y.,  by  the  same  Bishop  ;  was  a 
Presbyter  in  the  P.  E.  C.  until  1871,  and  then  resigned.  His  maternal  grandfather 
was  of  an  English  Episcopal  family,  and  a  nephew  of  his  grandfather  was  Rev 
Thomas  B.  Murray,  who  was  long  a  Secretary  of  the  Society  for  Promoting 
Christian  Knowledge,  and  a  niece  was  the  authoress  Charlotte  Elizabeth,  who  for 
many  years  conducted  a  Ladies’  Church  of  England  magazine.  His  paternal 
grandfather  was  for  many  years  a  communicant  and  vestryman  in  the  Episcopal 
parish  at  Dumfries,  Ya.  These  show  his  family  connection  with  the  Pan- Anglican 
Church.  (See  references,  xi.  26.) 

(8.)  Rev.  B.  B.  Leacock,  D.D.,  graduated  A.B.  from  Rutgers  College,  N.  J., 
in  the  class  of  1847;  in  1850  received  the  degree  of  A,M.  from  the  same;  on 
July  11,  1851,  was  ordained  Deacon  by  Bishop  William  Meade,  D.D.,  in  the  chapel 
of  the  Theological  Seminary  of  Virginia  ;  on  July  16, 1852,  was  ordained  Presbyter 
by  Bishop  John  Johns,  D.D.,  in  Christ  Church,  Alexandria;  on  June  18,  1874, 
received  the  degree  of  D.D.  from  Rutgers  College.  (See  references,  xi.  26.) 

(9.)  Rev.  W.  T.  Sabine  was  born  in  New  York,  October,  1838 ;  parents 
were  members  of  the  P.  E.  C. ;  baptized  by  Bishop  Eastburn  ;  confirmed  by  Bishop 
Wainwright  in  1854  ;  graduated  A.B.  from  Columbia  College,  New  York,  in  1859, 
and  A.M.  in  1862 ;  graduated  from  the  Gen.  Theological  Seminary  of  the  P.  E.  C. 
in  New  York,  1862  ;  ordained  Deacon  in  Church  of  Transfiguration,  New  York,  by 
Bishop  Potter,  June,  1862  ;  Presbyter  in  Church  of  the  Ascension,  New  York,  by 
Bishop  Potter,  in  1863  ;  assistant  rector  of  St.  George’s  Church,  New  York,  from 
March  1  to  December  1,  1863  ;  rector  of  Church  of  the  Covenant,  Philadelphia,  Pa., 
December  1,  1863,  to  April  1,  1866;  rector  of  Church  of  Atonement,  New  York, 
April  1,  1866,  to  May  1, 1874,  when  he  became  rector  of  the  First  R.  E.  C.  in  New 
York,  and  so  remains.  (See  references,  xi.  26.) 

(10.)  Rev.  J.  Howard  Smith,  D.D.,  graduated  after  due  course  at  the  Theo¬ 
logical  Seminary  of  Virginia ;  was  ordained  Deacon  by  Bishop  Meade,  and 
Presbyter  by  Bishop  Johns.  (See  references,  xi.  26.) 

Form  of  a  Letter  of  Orders  in  the  P.  E.  C. 

(11.)  The  excluding  canon  of  the  P.  E.  C.  (xii.  59)  was  one  of  the  causes  of  the 
resignation  of  Mr.  Smith  (vii.  2).  The  Church  Journal  (iii.  Dec.  4, 1873)  says  :  “  It 
may  be  a  tolerable  opinion  in  the  Church  that  the  Apostolic  Succession  is  not 
necessary  to  a  valid  ministry.  It  is  an  opinion,  however,  which  the  Church  abso¬ 
lutely  forbids  every  parish,  every  convention,  every  Deacon,  Priest,  or  Bishop  from 
acting  on.”  According  to  this  canon  of  1868,  “no  church  wardens,  vestrymen,  or 
trustees  of  the  congregation  shall  permit  any  one  to  officiate  therein  without  suffi¬ 
cient  evidence  of  his  being  duly  licensed,  or  ordained  to  be  a  minister  in  this 
Church.”  To  show  what  the  P.  E.  C.  regards  as  “sufficient  evidence”  of  being  a 
“  priest  ”  in  this  “  Apostolic  Succession,”  to  pronounce  the  “  absolution  ”  and  admin 


246 


CHAPTER  XIX, 


19th.  Section. 

ister  the  communion  (which  a  Deacon  may  not  do),  I  have  bonowed  the  following 
document,  wrhicli  is  on  parchment,  endorsed  “  Letter  of  Orders — The  Rev.  M.  B. 
Smith,  A.M. — 1859.”  Then  on  its  face  :  “Be  it  Known  by  these  Presents,  that  I, 
Alfred  Lee,  by  Divine  Permission,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Delaware,  administering 
Holy  Orders  by  the  assistance  of  Almighty  God,  on  Wednesday,  the  seventh  day  of 
December,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-nine,  in 
St.  Andrew’s  Church,  in  the  city  of  Wilmington,  in  the  State  of  Delaware,  did 
admit  our  beloved  in  Christ  the  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  of  whose  virtuous  and 
pious  life,  and  conversation,  and  competent  learning,  and  knowledge  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  I  am  well  assured,  into  the  Holy  Order  of  Priests,  according  to  the 
form  and  manner  prescribed  and  used  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  ;  and  him,  the  said  Marshall  B.  Smith,  did  then  and  there, 
rightly  and  canonically,  ordain  a  Presbyter,  he  having,  in  my  presence,  freely 
and  voluntarily  declared  that  he  believes  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  to  contain  all  thing's  necessary  to  Salvation, 
and  having  solemnly  engaged  to  conform  to  the  Doctrines  and  Worship  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  In  Testimony 
Whereof,  I  have  caused  my  seal  to  be  hereunto  affixed.  Dated  the  day  and  year 
above  written,  and  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  my  consecration.  Alfred  Lee, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Delaware  [Seal].  Presbyters  assisting  in  the  ‘  Imposition 
of  Hands:’  The  Rev.  William  Sparrow,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Theological  Semi¬ 
nary  of  Virginia  ;  Rev.  Charles  Breck,  A.M.,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Wilmington, 
Del.;  Rev.  Samuel  C.  Brinckle,  A.M.,  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Christiana,  Del.; 
Rev.  Stevens  Parker,  M.A.,  Rector  of  St.John’s  Church,  Wilmington,  Del.;  Rev. 
Julius  E.  Grammar,  A.M.,  Rector  of  St.  Peter’s  Church,  Smyrna,  Del.” 

(12.)  Now :  These  records  show  that  all  the  clergy  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  wrho  have 
thus  far  been  consecrated  Bishops,  or  who  have  taken  part  in  such  consecration,  had 
the  same  succession  as  other  Presbyters  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  and  that  Bishop  Cummins 
had  the  same  succession  as  other  Bishops  in  the  P.  E.  C.  And,  according  to  the 
Canons  of  the  P.  E.  C.,  Bishop  Cheney  is  still  a  Presbyter  in  the  P.  E.  C.  while 
Bishop  in  the  R.  E.  C.  (xiii.  18.)  And  upon  “  Church  principles,”  all  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  descendants  of  the  R.  E.  C.  will  have  the  same  succession  as  the  R.  E.  C.  And 
those  who  are  most  hostile  to  the  R.  E.  C.  admit  that  it  has  the  same  succession  as 
the  P.  E.  C.  (ii.  Jan.  1,  22,  22,  29,  1874.)  It  is  analogous  to  other  cases  (ii.  June 
10,  Open  Letter;  iii.  Jan  29,  1874.)  Hence  the  hostility  of  the  P.  E.  C.  towards 
the  R.  E.  C.  (x. ;  xii.;  ii.  Dec.  31,  1873.)  On  this  point  the  following  unauthorized 
expressions  of  opinion  have  been  in  possession  of  the  authorities  of  the  R.  E.  C. 
since  May  12-18,1875  ;  and  no  objection  has  been  heard,  (iv.;v.;  xi.  1,43  ;  xiv.  ll;xvi. 
21) ;  and  Chapter  xvii.  of  the  present  date  contains  many  opinions  expressed,  and 
action  by  those  in  authority  which  agree  with  the  same,  and  all  tending  to  the 
same  point  as  contained  in  italics  (xii.  50.) 

The  R.  E.  C.  has  been  charged  with  inconsistency  in  claiming  the  same  succes¬ 
sion  as  the  High-Churclimen  in  the  P.  E.  C.,  while  denying  all  superiority  over 
those  who  have  a  different  succession.  But  this  is  analogous  to  what  we  see  daily 
in  social  life,  where  one  member  of  a  family  simply  shows  that  he  has  a  “  respecta¬ 
ble  ”  descent,  and  another  of  the  same  family  claims  that  in  consequence  of  that 
descent,  he  has  the  right  to  treat  all  others  as  his  inferiors  (xviii.  July  8,  1875 
P.  E.  C.;  xix.  2  ;  xx.  1.) 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


247 


20th  Section. 

NAMES  AND  RESIDENCES  OF  THE  MINISTERS  OF  THE  REFORMED 

EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

May  24, 1876. 

Bishop  George  David  Cummins,  D.D.,  Lutherville,  Baltimore  Co.,  Maryland. 

Bishop  Charles  Edward  Cheney,  D.D.,  870  Michigan  Avenue,  Chicago,  Ill. 

Bishop  William  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  2029  DeLancey  Place,  Philadelphia.  Second 
Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  Sansom  Street,  above  Twenty-first  Street. 

Rev.  R.  H.  Bosworth,  1525  Shurtleff  Avenue,  Chicago,  Ill.  Emmanuel  Church, 
Twenty -eighth  and  Hanover  Streets,  Chicago. 

Rev.  R.  H.  Bourne,  Charity  Hospital,  Blackwell’s  Island,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  William  Bower,  St.  Paul’s  Church,  Put-in-Bay,  Ohio. 

Rev.  H.  H.  Brooks,  Houston,  Texas. 

Rev.  J.  Eastburn  Brown,  St.  Paul’s  Church,  Moncton,  N.  B.,  Canada. 

Rev.  H.  M.  Collisson,  Emmanuel  Church,  Ottawa,  Canada. 

Rev.  William  II.  Cooper,  D.D.,  174  Center  Street,  Chicago,  Ill.  Immanuel  Church, Cen 
ter  and  Dayton  Streets. 

Rev.  Edward  Cridge,  B.A.,  Cantab.,  Church  of  our  Lord,  Humboldt  Street,  Victoria, 
British  Columbia. 

Rev.  J.  P.  Davis,  St.  John’s  Church,  Chillicothe,  Peoria  Co.,  Illinois. 

Rev.  Laurence  Dawson,  Pineville.  St.  Stephen’s  P.  0.,  South  Carolina. 

Rev.  John  K.  Dunn,  Cumberland,  Maryland. 

Rev.  Samuel  Fallows,  D.D.,  530  Fulton  Street,  Chicago,  Illinois.  St.  Paul’s  Church 
corner  Washington  and  Ann  Streets. 

Rev.  William  V.  Felt  well,  Falls  of  Schuylkill,  Philadelphia.  In  charge  of  Grace 
Chapel. 

Rev.  F.  C.  Ferguson,  Monk’s  Corner,  South  Carolina. 

Rev.  Edward  A.  Forrest,  Charleston,  South  Carolina. 

Rev.  Mason  Gallagher,  Paterson,  N.  J.  Officiating  at  Rahway,  N.  J. 

Rev.  Ernst  Guntrum,  Chicago,  Illinois. 

Rev.  William  Hartley,  Ashdown,  Algoma,  Ontario,  Canada. 

Rev.  George  Howell,  107  West  40th  Street,  New  York  City.  Emmanuel  Church 
165-167  West  26th  Street. 

Rev.  Wm.  L.  Jett,  Washington,  Rappahannock  Co.,  Virginia. 

Rev.  Benjamin  Johnson,  Charleston,  South  Carolina. 

Rev.  James  Johnson,  No.  7  Philomene  Terrace,  Daly  Street,  Ottawa,  Canada. 

Rev.  James  A.  Latane,  St.  Stephen’s  Church  P.  O.,  King  and  Queen  Co.,  Va. 

Rev.  Benjamin  B.  Leacock,  D.D.,  170  Chambers  Street,  Newburgh,  Orange  Co.,  N.  Y. 

Church  of  the  Corner-Stone,  Newburgh. 

Rev.  J.  H.  MacElRey,  Susquehanna  Depot,  Susquehanna  Co.,  Pennsylvania. 

Rev.  Joseph  S.  Malone,  621  East  York  Street,  Philadelphia.  Emmanuel  Church, 
corner  East  York  and  Sepviva  Streets. 

Rev.  Johnston  McCormac,  361  Bathurst  Street,  Toronto,  Canada.  Emmanuel 
Church,  Markam  Street. 

Rev.  M.  T.  McCormick,  Trinity  Church,  Englewood,  Cook  County,  Illinois. 

Rev.  Thomas  J.  McFadden,  First  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  Littleton,  Colorado. 
Rev.  William  McGuire,  Chatham,  New  Brunswick,  Dominion  of  Canada. 


248 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


20th  Section. 

Rev.  J.  H.  McMeclien,  2207  Chapline  Street,  Wheeling,  West  Virginia. 

Rev.  A.  M.  Morrison,  4200  Pine  Street,  West  Philadelphia. 

Rev.  Edward  D.  Neill,  Minneapolis,  Minnesota. 

Rev.  William  S.  Perkins,  Bristol,  Pa. 

Rev.  William  M.Postleth waite,  361  Druid  Hill  Avenue,  Baltimore,  Maryland.  Church 
of  the  Redeemer,  Bolton  Street,  near  Townsend. 

Rev.  Edwin  Potter,  Johnstown,  Fulton  Co.,  New  York. 

Rev.  James  C.  Platt,  Trinity  Chapel,  Boulder,  Colorado.  v 

Rev.  G.  Albert  Redles,  5166  Germantown  Avenue,  Philadelphia.  Third  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church,  corner  of  Chelten  Avenue  and  Wayne  Street. 

Rev.  William  IP.  Reid,  156  Washington  Street,  Brooklyn,  New  York.  Church  of 
the  Atonement,  located  in  Kings  Co.  Bank,  corner  Broadway  and  4th  Street, 
Brooklyn,  E.  D. 

Rev.  F.  H.  Reynolds,  293  East  Monument  Street,  Baltimore,  Maryland.  Emmanuel 
Church,  N.  W.  corner  of  Fornest  and  Monument  Streets. 

Rev.  William  T.  Sabine,  111  East  Nineteenth  Street,  New  York.  First  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church,  Madison  Avenue  and  Forty-seventh  Street. 

Rev.  Alexander  Sloan,  Newfield,  Gloucester  Co.,  New  Jersey. 

Rev.  J.  Howard  Smith,  D.D.,  49  New  Street,  Newark,  New  Jersey.  Emmanuel 
Church,  Association  Hall,  West  Park  Street. 

Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith,  Passaic,  N.  J. 

Rev.  Thompson  L.  Smith,  Jefferson  City,  Missouri.  Holy  Trinity  Church. 

Rev.  P.  F.  Stevens,  Mt.  Pleasant,  Charleston  County,  South  Carolina.  Officiating 
for  eight  congregations  (colored). 

Rev.  John  Todd, St.  John’s  Church,  Sussex,  New  Brunswick,  Canada. 

Rev.  Charles  IP.  Tucker,  1715  Arlington  Street,  Philadelphia.  Church  of  our  Re¬ 
deemer,  Sixteenth  and  Oxford  Streets. 

Rev.  B.  B.  Ussher,  M.D.,  26  Charles  Street,  West  Toronto,  Canada.  Christ  Church, 
James  and  Louisa  Streets. 

Rev.  Albert  Walldey,  P.  O.  address,  888  Archer  Avenue,  Chicago,  Illinois.  Resi¬ 
dence,  Beers  and  Homan  Streets.  Church  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  Jones  and 
Homan  Streets. 

Rev.  H.  H.  Washburn,  No.  1  Edmondson  Avenue,  Baltimore,  Maryland.  Church 
of  the  Rock  of  Ages.  Y.  M.  C.  A.  Hall,  North  Schroeder  Street,  between  Frank¬ 
lin  and  Mulberry  Streets. 

Rev.  Joseph  D.  Wilson,  Peoria,  Hlinois.  Christ  Church,  Madison  Street,  between 
Hamilton  and  Fayette  Streets. 

Rev.  Walter  Windeyer,  Zion  Church,  St.  John,  N.  B  ,  Canada,  (i.  Dec.  2,  1873,  Or¬ 
ganization  ;  xi.  26.) 


CHAPTER  XX. 


APPENDIX. 


Contents  : — (1).  Bishop  Boane. — (2).  See  8. — (3).  Remarks  respecting 
Dr.  Jaggar. — (4).  Bishop  Howe. — (5).  Bishop  Huntington. — (6).  Excluding 
Canon  by  Bps.  Onderdonh  and  Croes. — (7).  Changes  in  the  P.  E.  C.  by  Dr. 
Tyng  and  Bishop  A.  Lee. — (8).  “  Protestant  ”  Church  of  England  f — (9). 
Conservatism. — (10)  Dicliostasia. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  Bishop  Doane,  in  liis  address  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Albany, 
Jan.  14,  1874,  says  of  Bishop  Cummins:  (1)  “  This  man  with  heated  haste,  heads, 
of  his  own  choosing',  an  assemblage  of  men  ‘  in  debt,  distress,  and  discontented,’ 
and  rushes  into  violent  schism.  . .  .(2)  For  years  the  degenerate  descendants  of  the 
old  school  in  the  Church  that  called  itself  exclusively,  and  with  a  savor  of  Pharisa¬ 
ism,  Evangelicaly  has  been  engaged  in  a  bad  thing;  bitter  denunciation  of  men  and 
measures  from  whom  they  differed,  and  of  which  they  disapproved.  The  more 
they  diminished  in  numbers,  the  more  they  increased  in  venom.  And  pamphlets 
have  reeked,  and  platforms  have  rung  with  the  gall  of  their  bitterness.  This  was 
bad  enough.  But  bad  things  encouraged  always  grow  to  worse.  And  the  next 
phrase  of  this  evil  speaking,  after  it  had  spread  its  seeds  of  suspicion  and  false  wit¬ 
ness,  was  an  attack  upon  the  Church,  ‘  her  imperfect  reformation,’  and  upon  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  £  its  germs  of  Romanism.’. . .  .It  is  the  side  whose  seed  has 
bloomed  out  into  noxious  flower,  and  borne  its  unripe  fruit.”. . .  .(3)  “Another  set  of 
men. ..  .must  leave  the  Church  and  join  the  greatest  schism  of  history — the  Ro¬ 
man  communion.  . .  .(4)  Such  men  are  really  in  one  case  proposing  an  amalgama¬ 
tion  with  the  incoherent  antagonisms  of  discordant  sects ;  or  in  the  other  case, 
cultivating  a  tendency  to  uuite  with  the  communion  which  is  the  mistress  of 
schism.’’  Of  Bishop  Cummins  and  the  R.  E.  C.,  he  says:  (5)  “I  say  but  little  of 
the  man  who  has  lifted  liis  heel  against  the  Mother  whose  bread  he  has  been 
eating  for  eight  and  twenty  years.  ..  .(6)  Nor  do  Isay  much  of  the  movement 
itself.  Its  only  principle  is  one  which  contradicts  itself;  the  carrying  of  the 
Apostolic  office  into  a  body  that  denies  a  continuous  Apostolate.”  (xiii.  10.) 

Now,  take  these  extracts  in  the  order  of  the  numbers  (1)  see  (xiii.  25;  xii.  8)— 

(2)  see  (xiii.  10^) — (3)  see  (xii.  8) — (4)  see  xii.  8,  58.  (5)This  applies  with  equal 
truth  to  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  and  consequently  to  Bishop  Doane  him¬ 
self,  as  deriving  his  Orders  from  the  Church  of  England.  (6)  Bishop  Doane 
appears  to  be  ignorant  of  the  Declaration  of  Principles,  (xi.  2.) 

(2)  This  was  a  question  which  was  answered  (xx.  8.) 

(3)  Dr.  Jaggar’s  Sympathy  for  Dr.  Cheney  in  1871.  The  letter  from  “Brook¬ 
lyn  ”  (iii.  March  1,  1875),  mistakes  the  date,  and  says  of  Dr.  Cheney:  “After  the 


250 


CHAPTER  XX. 


3d  Section. 

latter’s  trial  and  deposition.”  And  the  editor  of  the  Episcopalian  makes  no  objec¬ 
tion  to  this  statement  (iii.  March  10,  Brooklyn).  His  error  as  to  date  was  corrected 
by  B.  Aycrigg  as  soon  as  he  observed  the  fact  that  the  deposition  was  published 
Jan.  2,  while  the  letters  were  to  be  sent  to  Dr.  Cheney  by  May  13  (iii.  March  12, 
Dr.  Jaggar).  These  publications  of  March  1  and  12  were  upon  the  individual 
responsibility  of  two  members  of  the  R.  E.  C.;  and  the  R.  E.  C.  is  responsible  for 
neither,  whether  well  or  ill-judged.  This  letter  of  March  1  is  supposed  to  be  an 
indication  of  hostility  towards  the  P.  E.  C.  by  four  writers  (iii.  March  3,  Brooklyn; 
March  11,  Votes  ;  March  13,  Dr.  Hopkins;  March  13,  Reformed),  and  by  parity  of 
reasoning  the  letter  of  March  12  must  be  in  favor  of  the  P.  E.  C.  But  as  I  under¬ 
stand  the  case,  the  intention  of  the  former  was  simply  the  expression  of  an  individ¬ 
ual  opinion  respecting  an  individual;  while  the  latter  was  simply  the  correction  of 
an  error.  As  to  what  remains  after  that  error  is  corrected,  see  (xi.  21,  22).  As  I 
understand  the  case,  this  is  no  exception  that  demands  a  modification  of  the  state¬ 
ment  (xiv.  4).  And  if  it  be  so  claimed,  then  compare  this  with  (xiii.  10),  (iii.  March 
15,  1875,  Dr.  Hopkins.) 

(4)  Bishop  Howe  to  Rev.  J.  H.  Mac  El’  Rey,] . ii.  April  7,  1875 

(5)  Bishop  Huntington,  of  Central  New  York  (Clin.),  June  10,  1874,  in  Con¬ 

vention  said :  One  of  the  very  saddest  of  my  duties  was  that  of  giving  canonical 
consent,  on  the  28tli  of  May,  to  the  deposition  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  George  David  Cum¬ 
mins,  D.D.,  from  the  highest  office  in  the  Christian  Church.  The  renunciation  of 
the  place  in  which  the  providence  of  God  and  the  Divine  grace  of  Orders  had  set 
him,  appeared  to  me  to  be  without  reason  in  itself,  without  justification  in  its  cir¬ 
cumstances,  without  logical  weight  or  clearness,  or  even  pathos  in  its  explanation; 
weak  in  its  issues  and  only  distracting  in  its  effects;  barren  of  all  blessing,  likely 
to  be  futile  even  as  a  schism;  a  bitter  and  cruel  self-hurt  to  the  seceder  himself,  and 
a  melancholy  indignity  to  the  Body  of  Christ.” . xiii.  10. 

(G)  Excluding  Canon.  Rev.  Richard  Newton,  D.D.,  in  his  “  Liberal  Views  of 
Christianity,”  published  by  the  E.  K.  S.,  without  date,  in  a  note  on  page  22,  says 
that  Bishop  H.  N.  Onderdonk  told  one  of  his  presbyters  that  “  that  canon  had  no 
reference  to  ministers  of  other  denominations;  and  then  showed  from  the  history 
of  the  Canon  that  its  design  was,  as  here  stated,  to  keep  impostors  from  intruding 
themselves  into  our  churches.”  Also,  Bishop  John  Croes,  of  New  Jersey,  as  reported 
by  Dr.  Morehouse,  “  explained  the  circumstances  under  which  the  Canon  was  orig¬ 
inally  passed,  and  assured  him  that  it  was  in  no  way  intended  to  forbid  the  invita¬ 
tion  of  non-episcopal  clergymen  to  preach,  nor  the  lending  of  the  church  for  a  ser¬ 
vice  by  such  clergyman  upon  proper  occasions.”  The  remarks  of  Dr.  Newton  show 
that  this  was  printed  before  the  passage  of  the  Canon  of  1868 . xii.  41. 

(7)  Changes  in  the  P.  E.  C.  The  Southern  Churchman  of  Oct.  2, 1873,  reports 
among  the  remarks  of  Rev.  S.  IL.  Tyng,  Sr.,  D.D.,  at  the  Semi-Centennial  of  the 
Theological  Seminary  of  Virginia,  respecting  the  changes  in  the  P.  E.  C. :  “I  beg 
you,  young  men,  to  listen  to  the  testimony  of  one  who  has  been  in  the  ministry  for 
fifty-four  years.  1  give  my  testimony;  I  care  for  nothing  else.  I  do  conform  to  all 
the  regulations  of  the  Church;  I  am  conservative  by  nature;  I  believe  I  am  the 
only  clergyman  in  the  city  of  New  York  who  retains  all  the  old  forms  and  customs 
of  the  Church.  Some  one  told  the  Bishop  of  New  York  not  long  since,  if  Bishop 
Hobart  could  return,  the  only  church  ii  the  city  where  everything  was  as  he  left 


CHAPTER  XX. 


251 


7th  Section. 

it,  was  St.  George’s  Church.”  Also,  in  the  same  paper,  Bishop  Alfred  Lee  is  re¬ 
ported  as  saying  :  “  This  is  a  time  of  ‘  theories,’  and  there  is  danger  lest  the  Gospel 
drop  out  entirely.  There  is  a  tendency  of  ministers  becoming  mere  manipulators 
of  sacred  offices,  and  know  nothing  of  the  core  of  religion  and  the  pearl  of  great 
price.” . . . xii.  38,  39. 

(8)  “  The  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established.”  This  is  given 
(xii.  17).  The  term  “  Protestant  ”  is  denied  by  Bishop  Lewis  (xiii.  14  to  17).  To 
determine  this  discrepancy,  I  wrote  (April  6)  to  a  gentleman  in  Ottawa  (xx.  2) 
requesting  him  to  examine  35tli  Eliz.,  Chap.  I.  He  reports  (April  24)  that  the  word 
“  Protestant  ”  does  not  appear.  Then  (April  28)  I  examined  1st  and  35th  Eliz. ,  and 
did  not  find  the  word  “  Protestant  "  in  a  hasty  examination,  as  I  took  the  copy  from 
the  hands  of  the  compositor  who  was  waiting  for  copy.  Hence  the  inference  that 
Cobbett  quotes  this  title  from  somewhere  else.  But  since  this  is  only  inference, 
the  assertion  of  Bishop  Lewis  must  stand  as  unchallenged  until  this  inference  be 
proved  to  be  correct,  (xix.,  9.) 

(9)  Conservatism  (Ch.  St.  of  April  28,  1875).  “  The  General  Synod  of 

the  Irish  Church  was  held  on  April  6tli.  The  Revision  of  the  Prayer  Book  was 
under  discussion,  the  Preface  of  which  has  been  published.  While  it  leaves  the 
Prayer  Book  very  nearly  as  it  is,  to  the  satisfaction  of  those  who  are  attracted  to 
the  old  state  of  things  ;  it  nevertheless  so  carefully  guards  against  Romish  or 
Ritualistic  interpretations  of  the  services,  that  the  most  ardent  revisionist  ought  to 
be  satisfied  as  to  the  thorough  Protestantism  of  the  Irish  Church.  ‘  If  any  one 
shall  complain,’  says  the  Preface,  ‘  that  these  changes  are  not  enough,  and  that  we 
should  have  taken  this  opportunity  of  making  this  book  as  perfect  in  all  respects 
as  he  thinks  it  might  be  made,  let  him  consider  that  men’s  judgments  of  perfection 
are  very  various  ;  that  many  old  things  are  quietly  acquiesced  in  from  use  and 
habit,  where  if  a  change  were  introduced  (though  for  the  better)  it  might  produce 
strife  and  even  schism  ;  and  that  what  is  allowable,  though  imperfect,  with  peace, 
is  often  better  than  what  is  otherwise  more  excellent  without  it” . xi.  36* 

(10)  Dichostasia  is  referred  to  in  three  places  by  Robinson,  who  gives  its  deriva¬ 

tion  from  dicha-stasis — a  standing  apart,  viz.  :  Rom.  16  :  17,  “  Now  I  beseech  yon, 
brethren,  to  mark  them  which  cause  divisions .”  And  1  Cor.  3:3,“  For  ye  are  yet 
carnal ;  for  whereas  there  is  among  ye  envyings,  and  strife,  and  divisions.”  And 
Gal.  5:  20,  “Now  the  works  of  the  flesh  are  manifest,  which  are  these — adultery, 
fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emula¬ 
tion,  wrath,  strife,  seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revel!  ings, 
and  such  like.” . xii.  5 

(11)  Monogram  in  a  church  window  in  Naples,  contains  the  Greek  letters  Irjcrovo 
*=Iesous=Jesus. 


•- 


• 

. 


♦ 


■ 

•  :  , 

. 


. 

> 


* 


252 


CHAPTER  XX. 


THE  SURPLICE— {Circular.) 

12th  Section. 

(12).  June  17,  1876.  Received  this  day  a  circular  without  date,  printed  in 
this  form  rather  than  in  the  Episcopal  Recorder ,  containing  a  communication  from 
“a  valued  correspondent,”  who  calls  the  Surplice  “A  ‘linen  rag’ of  Popery” — 
2d,  “  The  Babylonian  garment” — 3d,  as  to  “the  origin  and  significance  of  such 
usage,”  quotes  the  “  very  edifying  explanation  copied  from  an  authorized  manual 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  ”  as  to  “  the  garments  wherewith  the  priest  is  vested  dur¬ 
ing  the  time  of  Mass.  . .  The  Amice.  .  .  .The  Alb.  .  .  .The  Maniple.  .  .  .The  Chasuble 
. .  .  .The  priest’s  Tonsure,”  and  says:  “  The  R.  E.  C.,  to  be  honest  and  consistent, 
should  adopt  the  use  of  the  complete  set  of  sacerdotal  vestments,  including  ‘  The 
priest’s  Tonsure’  or  none!' 

Then  (4th),  the  editor  comments:  “If  anything  has  been  established  in  the 
settled  regard  of  the  people,  it  is  this,  that  the  Surplice,  whenever  or  wherever 
seen,  indicates  the  claim  and  discharge  of  sacerdotal  functions,  on  the  part  of  the 
person  wearing  it.”  (5th).  “  The  uniting  of  such  a  claim  and  idea  with  the  gar¬ 
ment,  has  been  carefully  and  persistently  inculcated  by  the  priestly  and  ritualistic 
party  from  its  very  rise  and  origin  in  the  Tractarian  movement.” 

Now  (6th),  I  deny  all  the  above,  except  the  last  (or  fifth),  and  ask  for  proof.  As 
I  understand  the  matter,  the  Surplice  is  not  “  a  linen  rag  of  Popery,”  nor  “  a 
Babylonish  garment.”  It  has  no  connection  with  the  “  Amice,”  “Alb,”  “Maniple,” 
“  Chasuble,’’  or  “  Tonsure,”  (1st,  2d,  3d).  And  (4tli),  it  does  not  “  indicate  the  claim 
and  discharge  of  sacerdotal  functions,”  except  of  late  years  (5tli),  by  the  “  Tracta- 
rians,”  who,  in  like  manner,  have  put  a  ritualistic  construction  on  Baptism  and  the 
Lord’s  Supper. 

7th.  On  the  contrary,  the  Surplice  is  used  exclusively  by  Protestants.  It  is 
used  by  the  Moravians;  it  is  obligatory  in  the  Free  Church  of  England,  and  these 
are  undoubtedly  Protestant.  It  is  used,  and  I  believe  that  it  is  obligatory  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  that  is  Protestant  by  strict  Parliamentary  law  (xix.  9). 
It  is  never  used  by  the  Romish  priests,  and  in  1874  I  saw  Bishop  Tozer  officiating 
in  a  Romish  “  Alb,”  resembling  a  linen  “  duster,”  coming  down  to  the  knees,  and 
with  small  sleeves,  in  place  of  the  long  Surplice  with  full  sleeves ;  and  I  believe 
that  he,  like  Bishop  Lewis,  holds  that  the  Church  of  England  is  not  Protestant, 
(xix.  9.) 

8tli.  Again :  This  correspondent  desires  the  Council  to  forbid  the  use  of  the 
Surplice.  It  is  a  legal  maxim  that  “  He  who  brings  his  claim  before  the  court 
must  come  with  clean  hands.”  This  is  not  the  case  at  present.  He  says  :  “  By  a 
unanimous  vote  of  all  the  members  of  the  vestry,  we  requested  Mr.  - to  dis¬ 

continue  the  use  of  the  Surplice.”  This  contradicts  the  promise  made  in  behalf  of 
the  parish,  to  agree  to  the  Discipline  of  the  R.  E.  C.  The  Council  has  left  the 
dress  to  the  discretion  of  the  Rector.  This  vestry  undertakes  to  set  that  provision 
aside,  and  usurp  power  that  does  not  belong  to  them,  and  to  tyrannize  over  the 
Rector.  Should  they  drive  away  the  Rector  on  such  grounds,  they  may  not  get 
another  worth  having,  since  no  clergyman  with  a  proper  spirit  will  allow  himself 
to  be  “  parish  ridden.” 

9th.  I  state  these  facts  from  personal  knowledge.  Immediately  after 
the  organization  of  the  R.  E.  C.,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Executive  Com¬ 
mittee  (composed  of  all  the  members  of  all  the  special  committees), 


253 


CHAPTER  XX. 

/ 


12th  Section. 

Bishop  Cummins  proposed  that  we  abandon  the  u^e  of  the  bishop’s  robes 
and  of  the  surplice,  and  use  only  the  plain  black  academic  gown,  as  is  usual 
with  several  non-Episcopal  denominations.  This  agreed  with  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  the  Committee.  As  a  consequence,  the  Bishop  handed  over  his 
robes  to  be  used  for  family  purposes,  and  they  were  taken  to  pieces.  Then  came  a 
telegram  from  Chicago,  “  Bring  your  robes  if  you  do  not  use  them.”  The  pieces 
were  taken  to  Chicago.  I  now  speak  only  for  myself,  and  say,  that  I  found  the 
members  of  Bishop  Cheney’s  congregation  extremely  anxious  that  the  dress  should 
be  the  same  as  they  had  been  accustomed  to  see.  They  claimed  to  be  Episcopal¬ 
ians.  They  had  refused  to  be  driven  out  of  the  P.  E.  C.  I  yielded  my  preferences, 
regarding  it  then,  as  I  do  now,  simply  a  matter  of  taste.  With  our  thoroughly 
Protestant  standards,  the  precise  dress  can  have  no  doctrinal  signification. 

I  believe  that  all  the  members  of  the  Executive  Committee  agreed  that  it  would  be 
best  to  comply  with  this  wish,  and  leave  the  custom  that  ve  desired,  to  be  gradually 
introduced.  This  question  was  subsequently  fully  discussed  by  the  Sub-Commit¬ 
tee  on  Canons,  and  re-discussed  by  the  Executive  Committee.  We  were  unani¬ 
mously  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  best  to  leave  the  dress  to  the  discretion  of  the 
minister.  This  was  confirmed  bv  the  action  of  the  General  Council.  I  believe 
that  the  last  time  that  Bishop  Cummins  has  appealed  in  any  dress  except  the  plain 
black  gown  was  on  this  occasion  at  Chicago.  I  have  seen  Bishop  Nicholson  in  no 
other  dress,  even  when  officiating  as  a  Bishop. 

10th.  As  to  the  Surplice,  this  circular  admits  that  “  an  overwhelming  majority, 
both  of  ministers  and  laity  of  the  R.  E.  C.”  wish  to  ab  andon  its  use,  thus  showing 
the  good  common  sense  of  the  Council  of  leaving  this  matter  to  be  settled  b}r 
custom.  But  this  correspondent  is  too  much  excited  to  wait,  “  wants  everything 
done  in  twenty  minutes,”  and  says  :  “  1  fear  we  will  lose  some  of  our  most  f aithjul 

and  valued  members,  if  Mr. - persists  much  longer  in  wearing  the  surplice . 

I  fear  he  is.  .  .  .not  sufficiently  disposed  to  avail  himself  of  the  ample  liberty 
which  our  Church  affords,”  i.  e  the  “liberty”  of  allowing  a  tyrannic d  vestry 
by  an  act  of  usurpation  to  compel  him  to  please  them,  and  perhaps  distress  the 
greater  part  of  his  congregation,  who  prefer  the  dress  to  which  they  have 
always  been  accustomed. 

lltli.  This  circular  is  a  new  exemplification  of  the  dangers  referred  to  in  the 
circular  headed  :  “Let  well  enough  alone.”  (xix.  1,  2,  4  ;  ix.  3  ;  xi.  28,  34,  35,  43  ; 

xiv.  9.) 

Passaic,  N.  ,/. ,  June  19,  1870. 


B.  Aycrigg. 


CHAPTER  XX. 


Contents  : — (1).  Bishop  Doane. — (2).  See  8. — (3).  Remarks  respecting 
Dr.  Jaggar. — (4).  Bishop  Howe. — (5).  Bishop  Huntington. — (6).  Excluding 
Canon  by  Bps.  Onderdonk  and  Cross. — (7).  Changes  in  the  P.  E.  C.  by  Dr. 
Tyng  and  Bishop  A.  Lee. — (8).  “  Protestant  ”  Church  of  England  i — (9). 
Conservatism.  — (10)  Dichostasia. 

1st  Section. 

(1)  Bishop  Doane,  in  his  address  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Albany, 
Jan.  14,  1874,  says  of  Bishop  Cummins:  (1)  “  This  man  with  heated  haste,  heads, 
of  his  own  choosing,  an  assemblage  of  men  ‘  in  debt,  distress,  and  discontented,’ 
and  rushes  into  violent  schism.  . .  .(2)  For  years  the  degenerate  descendants  of  the 
old  school  in  the  Church  that  called  itself  exclusively,  and  with  a  savor  of  Pharisa¬ 
ism,  Evangelical ,  has  been  engaged  in  a  bad  thing;  bitter  denunciation  of  men  and 
measures  from  whom  they  differed,  and  of  which  they  disapproved.  The  more 
they  diminished  in  numbers,  the  more  they  increased  in  venom.  And  pamphlets 
have  reeked,  and  platforms  have  rung  with  the  gall  of  their  bitterness.  This  was 
bad  enough.  But  bad  things  encouraged  always  grow  to  worse.  And  the  next 
phrase  of  this  evil  speaking,  after  it  had  spread  its  seeds  of  suspicion  and  false  wit¬ 
ness,  was  an  attack  upon  the  Church,  ‘  her  imperfect  reformation,’  and  upon  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  ‘  its  germs  of  Romanism.’. . .  .It  is  the  side  whose  seed  has 
bloomed  out  into  noxious  flower,  and  borne  its  unrips  fruit.”. . .  .(3)  “Another  set  of 
men. ..  .must  leave  the  Church  and  join  the  greatest  schism  of  history — the  Ro¬ 
man  communion.  . .  .(4)  Such  men  are  really  in  one  case  proposing  an  amalgama¬ 
tion  with  the  incoherent  antagonisms  of  discordant  sects ;  or  in  the  other  case, 
cultivating  a  tendency  to  unite  with  the  communion  which  is  the  mistress  of 
schism.’’  Of  Bishop  Cummins  and  the  R.  E.  C.,  he  says:  (5)  “I  say  but  little  of 
the  man  who  has  lifted  his  heel  against  the  Mother  whose  bread  he  has  been 
eating  for  eight  and  twenty  years.... (6)  Nor  do  Isay  much  of  the  movement 
itself.  Its  only  principle  is  one  which  contradicts  itself;  the  carrying  of  the 
Apostolic  office  into  a  body  that  denies  a  continuous  Apostolate.”  (xiii.  10.) 

Now,  take  these  extracts  in  the  order  of  the  numbers  (1)  see  (xiii.  25;  xii.  8) — 

(2)  see  (xiii.  10£) — (3)  see  (xii.  8) — (4)  see  xii.  8,  58.  (5)Tliis  applies  with  equal 
truth  to  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  and  consequently  to  Bishop  Doane  him¬ 
self,  as  deriving  his  Orders  from  the  Church,  of  England.  (6)  Bishop  Doane 
appears  to  be  ignorant  of  the  Declaration  of  Principles,  (xi.  2.) 

(2)  This  was  a  question  which  was  answered  (xx.  8.) 

(3)  Dr.  Jaggar’s  Sympathy  for  Dr.  Cheney  in  1871.  The  letter  from  “Brook¬ 
lyn  ”  (iii.  March  1, 1875),  mistakes  the  date,  and  savs  of  Dr.  Cheney  :  “  After  the 

(1) 


2 


CHAPTER  XX. 


3d  Section. 

latter’s  trial  and  deposition.”  And  the  editor  of  the  Episcopalian  makes  no  objec¬ 
tion  to  this  statement  (iii.  March  10,  Brooklyn).  His  error  as  to  date  was  corrected 
by  B.  Aycrigg  as  soon  as  he  observed  the  fact  that  the  deposition  was  published 
Jan.  %  while  the  letters  were  to  be  sent  to  Dr.  Cheney  by  May  13  (iii.  March  12, 
Dr.  Jaggar).  These  publications  of  March  1  and  12  were  upon  the  individual 
responsibility  of  two  members  of  the  R.  E.  C.;  and  the  R.  E.  C.  is  responsible  for 
neither,  whether  well  or  ill-judged.  This  letter  of  March  1  is  supposed  to  be  an 
indication  of  hostility  towards  the  P.  E.  C.  by  four  writers  (iii.  March  3,  Brooklyn; 
March  11,  Votes  ;  March  13,  Dr.  Hopkins;  March  13,  Reformed),  and  by  parity  of 
reasoning  the  letter  of  March  12  must  be  in  favor  of  the  P.  E.  C.  But  as  I  under¬ 
stand  the  case,  the  intention  of  the  former  was  simply  the  expression  of  an  individ¬ 
ual  opinion  respecting  an  individual;  while  the  latter  was  simply  the  correction  of 
an  error.  As  to  what  remains  after  that  error  is  corrected,  see  (xi.  21,  22).  As  I 
understand  the  case,  this  is  no  exception  that  demands  a  modification  of  the  state¬ 
ment  (xiv.  4).  And  if  it  be  so  claimed,  then  compare  this  with  (xiii.  10),  (iii.  March 
15,  1875,  Dr.  Hopkins.) 

(4)  Bishop  Howe  to  Rev.  J.  H.  Mac  El’  Rey,] . ii.  April  7,  1875 

(5)  Bishop  Huntington,  of  Central  New  York  (Clin.),  June  10,  1874,  in  Con¬ 

vention  said :  One  of  the  very  saddest  of  my  duties  was  that  of  giving  canonical 
consent,  on  the  28th  of  May,  to  the  deposition  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  George  David  Cum¬ 
mins,  D.D.,  from  the  highest  office  in  the  Christian  Church.  The  renunciation  of 
the  place  in  which  the  providence  of  God  and  the  Divine  grace  of  Orders  had  set 
him,  appeared  to  me  to  be  without  reason  in  itself,  without  justification  in  its  cir¬ 
cumstances,  without  logical  weight  or  clearness,  or  even  pathos  in  its  explanation; 
weak  in  its  issues  and  only  distracting  in  its  effects;  barren  of  all  blessing,  likely 
to  be  futile  even  as  a  schism;  a  bitter  and  cruel  self-hurt  to  the  seceder  himself,  and 
a  melancholy  indignity  to  the  Body  of  Christ.” . xiii.  10. 

(6)  Excluding  Canon.  Rev.  Richard  Newton,  D.D.,  in  his  “  Liberal  Views  of 

Christianity,”  published  by  the  E.  K.  S.,  without  date,  in  a  note  on  page  22,  says 
that  Bishop  H.  N.  Onderdonk  told  one  of  his  presbyters  that  “  that  canon  had  no 
reference  to  ministers  of  other  denominations;  and  then  showed  from  the  history 
of  the  Canon  that  its  design  was,  as  here  stated,  to  keep  impostors  from  intruding 
themselves  into  our  churches.”  Also,  Bishop  John  Croes,  of  New  Jersey,  as  reported 
by  Dr.  Morehouse,  “  explained  the  circumstances  under  which  the  Canon  was  orig¬ 
inally  passed,  and  assured  him  that  it  was  in  no  way  intended  to  forbid  the  invita¬ 
tion  of  non-episcopal  clergymen  to  preach,  nor  the  lending  of  the  church  for  a  ser¬ 
vice  by  such  clergyman  upon  proper  occasions.”  The  remarks  of  Dr.  Newton  show 
that  this  was  printed  before  the  passage  of  the  Canon  of  1868 . xii.  41. 

(7)  Changes  in  the  P.  E.  C.  The  Southern  Churchman  of  Oct.  2, 1873,  reports 
among  the  remarks  of  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  Sr.,  D.D.,  at  the  Semi-Centennial  of  the 
Theological  Seminary  of  Virginia,  respecting  the  changes  in  the  P.  E.  C. :  “I  beg 
you,  young  men,  to  listen  to  the  testimony  of  one  who  has  been  in  the  ministry  for 
fifty-four  years.  I  give  my  testimony;  I  care  for  nothing  else.  I  do  conform  to  all 
the  regulations  of  the  Church;  I  am  conservative  by  nature;  I  believe  lam  the 
only  clergyman  in  the  city  of  New  York  who  retains  all  the  old  forms  and  customs 
of  the  Church.  Some  one  told  the  Bishop  of  New  York  not  long  since,  if  Bishop 
Hobart  could  return,  the  only  church  in  the  city  where  everything  was  as  he  left 


CHAPTER  XX. 


3 


7th  Section. 

it,  was  St.  George’s  Church.”  Also,  in  the  same  paper,  Bishop  Alfred  Lee  is  re¬ 
ported  as  saying  :  “  This  is  a  time  of  ‘  theories,’  and  there  is  danger  lest  the  Gospel 
drop  out  entirely.  There  is  a  tendency  of  ministers  becoming  mere  manipulators 
of  sacred  offices,  and  know  nothing  of  the  core  of  religion  and  the  pearl  of  great 
price.” .  xii.  38,  39. 

(8)  “  The  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established.”  This  is  given 

(xii.  17).  The  term  “  Protestant  ”  is  denied  by  Bishop  Lewis  (xiii.  14  to  17).  To 
determine  this  discrepancy,  I  wrote  (April  6)  to  a  gentleman  in  Ottawa  (xx.  2) 
requesting  him  to  examine  35tli  Eliz.,  Chap.  I.  He  reports  (April  24)  that  the  word 
“  Protestant  ”  does  not  appear.  Then  (April  28)  I  examined  1st  and  35th  Eliz., and 
did  not  find  the  word  “  Protestant  ”  in  a  hasty  examination,  as  I  took  the  copy  from 
the  hands  of  the  compositor  who  was  waiting  for  copy.  Hence  the  inference  that 
Cobbett  quotes  this  title  from  somewhere  else.  But  since  this  is  only  inference, 
the  assertion  of  Bishop  Lewis  must  stand  as  unchallenged  until  this  inference  be 
proved  to  be  correct.  » 

(9)  Conservatism  (Ch.  St.  of  April  28,  1875).  “  The  General  Synod  of 

the  Irish  Church  was  held  on  April  Gtli.  The  Revision  of  the  Prayer  Book  was 
under  discussion,  the  Preface  of  which  has  been  published.  While  it  leaves  the 
Prayer  Book  very  nearly  as  it  is,  to  the  satisfaction  of  those  who  are  attracted  to 
the  old  state  of  things  ;  it  nevertheless  so  carefully  guards  against  Romish  or 
Ritualistic  interpretations  of  the  services,  that  the  most  ardent  revisionist  ought  to 
be  satisfied  as  to  the  thorough  Protestantism  of  the  Irish  Church.  ‘  If  any  one 
shall  complain/  says  the  Preface,  ‘  that  these  changes  are  not  enough,  and  that  we 
should  have  taken  this  opportunity  of  making  this  book  as  perfect  in  all  respects 
as  he  thinks  it  might  be  made,  let  him  consider  that  men’s  judgments  of  perfection 
are  very  various  ;  that  many  old  things  are  quietly  acquiesced  in  from  use  and 
habit,  where  if  a  change  were  introduced  (though  for  the  better)  it  might  produce 
strife  and  even  schism  ;  and  that  what  is  allowable,  though  imperfect,  with  peace, 
is  often  better  than  what  is  otherwise  more  excellent  without  it” . xi.  36- 

(10)  Dichostasia  is  referred  to  in  three  places  by  Robinson,  who  gives  its  deriva¬ 

tion  from  dicha-stasis — a  standing  apart,  viz.  :  Rom.  16  :  17,  “  Now  I  beseech  you, 
brethren,  to  mark  them  which  cause  divisions .”  And  1  Cor.  3  :  3,  “  For  ye  are  yet 
carnal  ;  for  whereas  there  is  among  ye  envyings,  and  strife,  and  divisions.”  And 
Gal.  5  :  20,  “  Now  the  works  of  the  flesh  are  manifest,  which  are  these — adultery, 
fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emula¬ 
tion,  wrath,  strife,  seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revel! ings, 
and  such  like.” . xii.  5 

(11)  Monogram  in  Naples. 


i, ' 


Lithomount 

Pamphlet 

Binders 

Gaylord  Bros.  Inc. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 


V*s;vr 

$«k  . 

v  ••  ••  ,As»-  .  ' 


v«vt|P- 

P*r 


,  «  ;  &/*  w  \  i/  * 

flfe  I  J*2%\  ffo  ,ri  ’ 
A:  X  M  *:  ft 


...  .■>::  ;•*.  .nv  v.-.vr, 

Is  O . "V.  ib*  4  : 


I.  IP** JilllSPil 
ft  v.'  •  | 

■  >■. 

FH^sm 


*t«t-  iVj  W  1» 

^  ',;  ■  JT-  T-i'. 

:  V/'  '  ^v-s  / 

•K,  J  ,  f  ■jSV.V'K  ^ 


K  HHi 


Skv  JW1L-. 

Say  v- 


Of 


Vij.  \ 

ft'c  ■■'■■  .  '■ 

V-  'V'"V'\  :  ‘K>/  -V 

- . -L-  > .  Air 

$|f  :>•'  . . :V  A# 

:«A'f  V  \ 


PS 

?«»£ 
ssS- 


t'.-  it  : :•»  ;• s •  ,vV\. 

%|.'f  jMMgtey  B* 

/  ,  -.  . V .,  oni1on 

:S  |f.  -m»v  iit.  V^1Br.,v  .  - 


3  0112  065509421 


IIP®  '  0  . , . ..  1 1 m rn  •'  Aip*rz* W 

jh“'  '  v-$v- .<>-■' y--.-irv«'.-  V i '  -i-  'JL ‘.v  !  '*1*  >4\.  j?-JJ  •,  %•'  • 

^%.,l«PrF! ■  -  A# M  .,  #  iW 

^k$nlmi  ,;  id#  .  SiSfe  lit  ite'ldl  ViJfelP 


l&iiiif*!'!, 


•  i  v.  ■  $  /A*  > 

' . ^fed  t  ’  j^,;  -  .  V* 

AMU  #r.  -  ::>■  ■.  iWx^'  MT 

Vv  i  1  •  :fi  *:•  k  .  ■  /£&: 


t.;>  •  »V*hM« 

-  : ">\%J  'A  ••:••"  # 


fiMyiaW  *,r-" 

\ Wii^K’r.' ' v *•  f^Ts.  .^.v^.vv.u  .••$? [•  i: //  * 

t 

»  mm 

■  1  !  l«WfS *a 

d>.V  ';-':v.v':  ’ ' 

. . 


V0, 


p:  ■<  £$$$$  ni 

Ifllpp . 'Mh'^sp#'^  -■*•  ''ill 

\ ; |b#| i  wMmw . . ■f#iV  ■ 


■m. 

MM 


l  .  f-‘ f. 

B  *  V- ,  ■ '  ■  '  . 


